' Since in almost all the cases in hand, a common question of law and fact is involved, hence I intend to dispose of all the cases with a common order.
2. All the aforesaid petitions were filed by the petitioners employed in. Auqaf Department under section 22-A (8) (g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 based upon the alleged acts of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents whereby the petitioners contended that they are serving under the Administrative control of the respondents since long and fall within the definition of workmen. It is also alleged that they have more than two years' service at the credit of each petitioner and their work is satisfactory because no disciplinary action is pending against any one of them on the basis of any complaint. It is specifically stated in the petitions that they are members of Auqaf Head Office Employees' Union (Regd.) and are on the electoral roll of the said union and are taking keen interest in the lawful trade union activities which annoyed the respondents and particularly respondent No,2 who has been trying to restrain the petitioners from taking part in the lawful trade union activities which is their lawful right. It is further alleged that the petitioners made a request to the respondent No,2 for providing all the facilities which are being provided to the other Government servants but respondent No,2 paid no attention to their legal demand regarding regularization of the petitioners in the light of the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan because the project of Data Darbar where the petitioners are working is not a project of temporary nature of the Auqaf Department and they are being paid their salary from the sanctioned budget by the Government. The petitioners have apprehended that instead of regularisation of their services, they may be thrown out of the department. The prayer made in all the aforesaid petitions is that the respondents be directed not to commit any further unfair labour practice and regularize the services of the petitioners.
2-A. The respondents were given notice of the above petitions and they appeared and filed written comments in each petition and contended that the petitioners were employed on daily wages and some of the petitioners were terminated from service prior to the issuance of stay order from this Commission and others were working. In the written reply filed by the respondents, the period of service of each petitioner has been given by the respondent which is more than two years in some cases and in the other less than two years. It has also been stated that the respondent- department is not aware of the fact that the petitioners are members of the trade union and despite the fact that they are employed on daily wages basis, they have not been asked to leave the trade union and that no unfair labour practice has been committed against the petitioners. It is also submitted that the Data Darbar Project has been given on contract and as such the services of the petitioners have been terminated and that being daily wagers, they have no right to claim and facility from the respondents under the instructions of the Government. The allegations of unfair labour practice have been denied by the respondents and they prayed for dismissal of the petitions. The respondents have also submitted in their written reply that the petitioners have no concern with the trade union which is registered for the workmen employed in the Auqaf Department and they cannot become members of the union being daily wages employees.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, placed before me. The learned counsel for the respondents has raised an objection that there is no registered trade union in the establishment and that as such this is not a case of unfair labour practice, and as such the petitions filed by the employees, are not maintainable, and that the petitioners are daily wages employees and were employed for specific period and they can be terminated at any time. The period/length of service of the petitioners have not been denied by the respondents. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the registration certificate of the Auqaf Head Office Employees' Union, Punjab, Lahore and a certificate from the General Secretary of the Union that the petitioners are members of the said union. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also placed on record some documents showing that after the termination of the petitioners, some persons have been appointed on daily wages against their places and that in this way, the respondents have discriminated against the petitioners regarding their employment which is a clear act of unfair labour practice. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the petitioners, by virtue of their length of service, have become permanent employees by operation of law and they cannot be terminated/removed by an omnibus order, without observing the legal formalities as required under the law.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and am of the view that the petitioners have been serving the department for the last so many years and in the light of the judgment of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan reported as PLD 1996 SC 610 wherein it has been held that if the nature of work for which a person is employed is of a permanent nature, then he becomes permanent upon the expiry of the period of nine months mentioned under the terms of schedule. It has not been denied by the respondents that the length of service of any of the petitioners is less than nine months. In the circumstances, the petitioners who have more than nine months of service have become permanent employee of the respondent-department by operation of law, because the nature of work/posts against which the petitioners were appointed is of permanent nature and is likely to last for more than nine months, which is the requirement of law and as such they cannot be terminated under the summary procedure because in so many cases (sic) the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeal No, 62 of 1999 where the question involved was that services of the respondent Muhammad Shakeel Mirza were terminated vide order dated 24-1-1998 on the ground that he was appointed as Field Operator on work-charge basis for 89 days and such period was to end on 30- 3-1998 and therefore, in accordance with agreed terms and conditions of his appointment, in his appointment letter, it was specifically stated that the services can be terminated at any time without notice. The honourable High Court (sic) has held that for all intents and purposes, the petitioner was a regular employee and not serving on workcharge/daily wages basis for the last so many years. His services ought to have been regularised and the department was directed to formulate within 6 months, a policy in respect of the regular appointment/regularisation of services of the petitioners and other similarly placed work- charge/daily wages/casual employees in accordance with law and to consider their cases accordingly. The Honourbale Supreme Court of Pakistan after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant i,e, Lahore Development Authority dismissed the appeal and declined the leave and as such the order of the honourable High Court was upheld. In another Civil Appeal No,1650L of 1998 passed by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan (Managing Director, WASA, LDA, Lahore v. Barkat Masih and Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in which the judgment, dated 18-3-1998 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and 5-5-1998 of Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No,8522 of 1998 were challenged. The sole question involved in this case was whether services of respondent No,1 (Barkat Masih) were rightly terminated on the ground of being a work-charged employee. The learned Judge took the view that the services of respondent were illegally terminated, in that, he was a permanent workman, therefore, his services could not be terminated without show-cause notice and holding of an enquiry. The honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, observed as under:-.- "The contention is misconceived. We see no illegality in the well-reasoned order of the High Court.
The High Court was right in holding that the post against which respondent No,1 was employed was of permanent nature and after expiry of ninety (90) days period thereof, he became a permanent workman. Clearly his services were not liable to be terminated without holding a proper enquiry which admittedly was not held in this case. Resultantly, the leave is declined and the petition is dismissed."
5. This being the legal situation and also remaining within the scope of the judgments of the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, the petitioners have attained the status of permanent employees and their services cannot be terminated without issuing them a charge-sheet, show- cause notice and a proper enquiry because the petitioners have crossed the limit prescribed by the law and also for the reason that the posts against which the petitioners are appointed are of permanent nature.
6. The next contention of the learned counsel for the respondents was that the work has been given on contract and that there is no need to retain the petitioners without any work because it is the sweet will of the contractor to engage the petitioners in future or not. There is no dispute regarding the utilisation of services of the contractor for a specific project and it is the right of the respondent-department to give work on contract but it is also made clear that there should not be any unfair labour practice on the pretext of contract. Admittedly, the petitioners have rendered their services for a long time and still they are performing their duties, it does not mean that there is no work and the services of the petitioners be dispensed with under the garb of contract because the petitioners have alleged in their petition that as soon as the respondents have learnt that the petitioners have joined the Auqaf Head Office Employees' Union Punjab, Lahore, they have started victimisation and committed acts of unfair labour practice and the Project of Data Darbar has been given on contract which is not fair and is being done with mala fide intention only to victimise the petitioners for their lawful trade union activities. I am in agreement with the learned counsel for the petitioners that they should not be victimised and made victim on the pretext of contract.
7. The result of the above discussion is that all these petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents that they may utilise the services of the contractor for the better administration and providing better facilities at Data Darbar but the services of the petitioners should not be dispensed with on the pretext of contract and they cannot be terminated without issuing charge- sheet, show-cause and holding proper enquiry etc. And also without assigning any reason on the plea that they are daily wages employees. The respondents are further directed to pay salary to the petitioners for the work done by them physically and also if the Contractor does not want to engage the petitioners at Data Darbar Project, the petitioners should be transferred to any other project of the Auqaf Department in Lahore or at any other station because the petitioners have specifically stated during the proceedings of this case that they are willing to go and work on other projects also and the respondents are not under compulsion to retain the petitioners at Data Darbar, Lahore. With the observations made above, the petitions are disposed of. Consigned to record.