' By the present judgment, I propose to dispose of the two appeals captioned above, the facts and legal propositions involved being identical. Learned Labour Court. Sargodha had on 14-9-1995 accepted the two grievance petitions, one filed by Munawar Iqbal etc: and the other by Tariq Mehmood, allowing half of the back benefits to all of them, excepting one Amjad Ali, who was held disentitled to the benefits, for the period for which he had served on daily wages. Employer has come up in appeal.
2. The respondents were appointed on work-charged basis, in different capacities of low-paid employees, in the year 1990, and their services were terminated on 18-8-1993. These orders were challenged by the employees as being not sustainable in law, although the establishment, namely, the Irrigation Department maintained otherwise. It has been asserted by the learned counsel for the appellant that employment had been made on ad hoc basis initially for a period of six months, and the term had been extended for another period of six months, and that too under the directive dated 21-3-1992 issued by the Chief Minister, amplifying that they would remain in service till such time appointment of suitable candidates by the competent Authority was not made. It has also been pointed out that the Revision of Pay Scales and Fringe Benefits, circulated on 1-8-1991, were the Rules which were applicable to regular Government servants only, and the work-charged or the contingency paid employees were not covered, nor were they governed by provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. For all intents and purposes, the respondents, it was urged, were civil servants, and not workmen, and the Labour Court, as also the Labour Tribunal, must be taken to be incompetent to deal with the service matters of these persons. Attention of the Court has also been drawn to the West Pakistan Irrigation Department Ministerial Service (Circle) Rules, framed in January, 1964, within compass of which rules, the cases of the respondents would fall, and Punjab Service Tribunal, and not this Tribunal, will have the jurisdiction. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, rule 22(2), Punjab Civil Servants (Conditions of Service) Rules provides that the appointing authority, in public interest, may fill a vacancy on ad hoc basis for a period not exceeding one year, pending regular selection of incumbent of the post by the Selection Authority.
Appointments having been made, without giving due publicity to the same in press, and without inviting applications from eligible candidates, would be violative of the fundamental rights, enshrined in the Constitution, it has been so contended by the learned counsel. It has also been urged that no ad hoc appointment can be converted into regular one, without observance of the prescribed procedure. The august Supreme Court had, in the case reported as 1996 SCMR 1349, pronounced that no appointments on ad hoc basis could be made without previous advertisement and for political considerations. Reliance has also been placed on 1989 PLC (C.S.) 8, laying down that an ad hoc appointtent could be terminated by the Departmental Authority without assigning any reason and without even a show-cause notice.
3. On the contrary, the learned counsel representing the respondents has canvassed convincingly, by relying on 1995 PLC (C.S.) 611/648/765 and 1995 PLC (L) 625/650, that the Irrigation Workshop falls under the definition of a factory, the employees of the Workshop are workers, under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 and the Factories Act, 1934, and the respondents are covered by the exception enacted under the definition of 'civil servant'. Their termination, having been ordered without observance of the provisions of the Standing Order 12 would be illegal. It is an admitted fact that the respondents have continuously been in service, without any break, for a period of about three years, and payment of wages for even holidays had always been made to them. In the recent judgment, PLD 1996 SC 610, it has explicitly been held that a work-charged employee would attain the status of a permanent worker and would be entitled to the protections and the aids of the Labour Laws.
4. When the learned Labour Court. As such, comes to the conclusion that the respondents must be regarded as permanent workmen, no exception could be taken to the correctness of the finding. It is to be particularly noted that it has been deposed by Ahmad Khan, Accounts Clerk, that vacancies of such nature are in existence and a person had even been employed against a post on daily wages. He was Amjad Ali, whose case was at par with the case of other people, and no discrimination could be meted out to him. Of course, the period spent by him on daily wages had to be differentiated, but when he is also treated with others as having regularly been absorbed in service, by reason of having rendered service for the prescribed period, he must also be held entitled to the monetary benefits, for the period, for which he has been out of service, following cessation of his service. It is so well-known that an employee having put in nine months' continuous service has to be considered as permanent workman, under the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. I would therefore uphold the decision rendered by the learned Labour Court. The respondents having not served in the field practically cannot be held entitled to back benefits in entirety. The finding recorded to the effect that they will get only half of the back benefits, as such, is also endorsed.
Amjad Ali by all means will also have similar entitlement. To that extent, the judgment of the Court below stands modified. Both the appeals, being devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed, with costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.