' By a judgment, announced on 9-1-1996 by the learned Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi, the grievance petition, filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by Pervez etc., Sanitary Workers of the Town Committee, Khewra, District Jhelum was accepted, and they were ordered to be reinstated in service with back benefits. The present appeal has been preferred by the Town Committee through its Administrator/Chairman.
2. According to the respondents, grievance-petitioners before the Labour Court, they were serving the Town Committee as Sanitary Workers on permanent basis and they were ousted from service without observance of the requisite legal formalities. The Town Committee, however, maintained that they had been employed temporarily and they could not have recourse of the Labour Court under the Labour Laws. Evidence of the Town Committee, respondent before the Labour Court, was closed on 4-1-1996, as in spite of having availed of a number of opportunities, the Local Body could not adduce any evidence. George Masih, one of the petitioners, made his statement as P. W.1, and one Muhammad Naseer, an employee of the Town Committee, was examined as P.W.2.
3. Both the witnesses refuted the suggestion that the petitioners were ad hoc or temporary employees or daily-wagers and that they had left service of their own accord. According to the grievance-petitioners they had formed a Labour Union and their services were dispensed with, because of their trade union activities, as the'` Authorities' had got offended, especially when they had applied on 3-1-1995 for registration of their trade union constituted on 18-11-1994. As per certificate Exh.P-1 the union was registered on 13-4-1995. They had also lodged a complaint Exh.P-2 against the Chief Sanitary Inspector and this had made their Head pointedly vindictive against them.
4. Since no evidentiary material by the Town Committee, as respondent before the Labour Court, has been produced, the assertion of the grievance-petitioners that they had been removed from service without issuance of show-cause notices charge-sheets and without any enquiry having been initiated against them will have to be accepted as correct. No orders about termination of their services are said to have been passed in writing. The learned lower Court has referred to provisions of Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which lay down that no workman could be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing, which shall explicitly state the reasons for the action taken' against the worker. It is also stipulated that provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 could well be availed of by such a workman. Reliance has been placed on 1989 PLC 646, 1990 PLC 571 and 1993 PLC 834, as also a Revision Petition No,GA-242 of 1995, having been decided on 31-3-1996 by this Tribunal. All the relevant provisions have been discussed in the last-mentioned judgment by this Court. The revision petition preferred by the Municipal Corporation, Gujranwala against the judgment rendered by the Labour Court in favour of the employee, Lal Masih by name, was dismissed as being without merit. The contention that a Town Committee/Municipal Committee/Municipal Corporation is neither an industry, nor an establishment nor a factory was spurned as being untenable. Low-paid municipal employees were treated as workmen and in regard to their service matters they were held to be subject to the Labour Laws. The learned Labour Court has also dilated in detail upon the two cases referred to in the judgment having been reported as 1989 PLC 646 and 1993 PLC 834.
5. The respondents claimed to have been in service of the Town Committee continuously for a number of years. A Notification issued on 31-8-1995, by the Administrator, Town Committee, Khewra has been placed on record; and the same shows that the respondents amongst a number of other Sanitary Workers and Water Supply Workers have been declared to be in employment on permanent. And regular basis. This would leave little doubt about the fact that they are no longer to be treated as temporary employees of the Town Committee. Their plea that they had, prior to their removal from service been working as permanent employees, for a period of 10/12 years, will have to be upheld. Worthy representative, appearing for the respondents, has rightly placed further reliance on a number of other rulings, as 1990 PLC 739 (Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal) and 1992 PLC 94. (Karachi High Court).
6. The judgment pronounced by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,6, Rawalpindi is affirmed, and the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed, with the modification that the respondents will be entitled to get half of the back benefits, since for the period in question they have not rendered service in actual practice. There shall be no order as to costs.