1. ' M. Gul Aslam Khan, Cane Supervisor, Sugar Mills, Serai Naurang, through this petition under section 25-A (4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, has challenged the order of the Project Manager, Sugar Mills, Serai Naurang respondent whereby petitioner was discharged. It is prayed that the order dated 30th October, 1975 of the respondent be set aside and he be declared permanent Cane Supervisor since 30th October, 1975.
2. ' This petition was contested by the respondents. Parties led their evidence. Mr. Abdul Razzaq Khan for the petitioner and Umer Jan Khan for the respondent addressed arguments.
3. ' From the evidence produced by the petitioner it is clear that he was appointed as seasonal clerk in the year 1965-66. He worked as an employee of the Sugar Mills and on 14th April, 1972, Office Order Exh. P. W. 1/2 was issued whereby services of the petitioner were regularised with effect from 10th March, 1972. Exh. P. W. 1/3 another Office Order shows that the petitioner was appointed as Supervisor in the Cane Department with effect from 7th May, 1975, and it was ordered that his services were purely temporary for the period of 3 months. On 6th August, 1975, he was discharged vide Office Order Exh. P. W. 1/4 but was appointed again as Supervisor on the next day i.e. 7th August, 1975, vide order Exh. P. W. 1/5 and that appointment was also temporary. He was again discharged on 30th July, 1975, vide a letter Exh. P. W. 1/6, dated 27th October, 1975 and appointed again as Supervisor on 29th October, 1975 on temporary basis. Copies of these 2 orders are Exh. P.
4. W. 1/6 and Exh. P. W. 1/1. Sahibzada Abdul Latif, Assistant Manager, R. W. 1, admitted these documents produced by the petitioner as correct. He also admitted in the cross-examination that from regular appointment it is meant that employees are permanent. Learned counsel for the petitioner is now a permanent employee as his services were regularized vide Exh. P. W. 1/2.
5. Therefore, subsequent order of discharge and appointment being temporary will have no effect inas much as the petitioner worked for more than 9 months and as such an employee who works for more than 9 months would be considered permanent under section 1 of West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. According to him the services of the petitioner could not be terminated without resorting to the provisions of sections 12 and 15 of the Standing Order. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that regularization order of the petitioner was made by the previous Management and the same is not binding on the respondent. He was of the view that petitioner's appointment had always been made on temporary basis for a particular season and as such he has not completed the period of 9 months.
6. ' After carefully considering the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties I have come to the conclusion that petitioner's counsel's contention is more convincing and satisfactory.
7. There is nothing on the record from the respondent's side to show that orders of the petitioner were considered as not binding on the present Management. The services of the petitioner were regularized on 14th April, 1972, as is evident from EA. P. W. 1/2. He was, therefore, made permanent on 14th April, 1972. Sahibsada Abdul Latif R. W. 1 admits that regular service means permanent service when once the petitioner's services were regularized subsequent appointment and discharge of the petitioner had no effect on his service. Even subsequent service of the petitioner was not discontinued. He was appointed as Supervisor in Cane Department on 7th Juno, 1975 and discharge order was made on 29th July, 1975 which had the effect from 6th August, 1975. He continued in service when another appointment order on 7th August, 1975 was issued. He was no doubt discharged on 30th October, 1975, but was again appointed on 1st November, 1975. The mere fact that the Management at the time of appointment of the petitioner after the discharge always mentioned him as temporary employee would not make him as temporary employee because of his being regularized in service on 14th April, 1972 and also that no break in service from 7th May, 1975 up to the filing of this petition had ever occurred. Therefore, from 7th May, 1975 up to the date of filing of this petition petitioner completed 9 months' service entitling him to claim permanency in service under section 1, clause 'B' of A Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. I, therefore, accept the petition of Gul Aslam petitioner and hold that order of discharge dated 30th October, 1975 is illegal and petitioner is a permanent Cane Supervisor from 30th October, 1975. Two copies of the judgment be sent to the Secretary Labour, Government of North-West Frontier Province, 29 Defence Officers Colony, Khyber Road, Peshawar Cantt.