1. DECISION ' This appeal has been filed against the order of Labour Court ordering re-instatement of the respondents on the application made under section 25-A of I. R.
2. 0., 1969.
3. ' The respondents were in the employment of the Food Department of the Government of Pakistan.
4. On 22nd August, 1974 the Rice Export Corporation was created and incorporated under the Companies Law. The employees in the Food Department were transferred to the Corporation.
5. Subsequently the services of the respondents were terminated by the Corporation. They approached the Labour Court after service of grievance notice.
6. ' The applications were resisted on various grounds. One of the grounds was that services of some of the employees were transferred by the Corporation by the Government of Pakistan by order darted 26-9-74 and in the List the respondents were not shown and, therefore, they could not be deemed to have been transferred. To the Corporation. They were, however, reemployed by the Corporation with effect from 1-11-76 making an offer dated 20-11-76 and their terms and conditions of service were also specified therein as well as in the memorandum dated 15-1-77. One of the terms of the offer of the employment was that they would be on probation for a period of three months. In pursuance of acceptance of this offer they were employed. So when their services were terminated on 31-1-1977, they had not yet completed the period of probation and, therefore, their grievance.
7. ' The learned Presiding Officer, on -the assessment of evidence, came to the conclusion that the respondents were in the employment of the appellant since the date it was created and, therefore, they were to be treated permanent employees and their termination of service was illegal. The remaining pleas raised on behalf of-the appellant were rejected.
8. ' Aggrieved by this, the present appeal was filed. The only ground which has been pressed before me relates to the finding of the Labour Court that the respondents were in the employment of the appellant.
9. ' On perusal of the R & P and hearing the arguments. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. It is an admitted position that since the day of creation of the Corporation the respondents were drawing their salary from the Corporation. So it must be presumed that they were in the service of the Corporaion. This is exactly what has been held by to Labour Court.
10. ' According to this, the respondents were in the service of the Corporation with effect from 22-8-74 and, therefore, the respondents were deemed to be in the permanent employment by virtue of the Standing Orders Ordinance as the period of their employment was far in excess of 3 months.
11. ' The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the respondents had accepted the offer made in November, 1976 and, therefore, they were debarred from claiming that their appointment was from the date of the Constitution of the Corporation. This plea was rejected by the Labour Court on the ground that there can no estopped against Law. I fully agrees with him.
12. ' It was next urged 'by the learned counsel for the appellant that the names of the respondents were not included in the List which was issued alongwith the order of transferring the service of some of the employees to. The Corporation. Indeed the names of the respondents are not incluled in the List but the fact remains that 'from :he very inception the Corporation the- respondents were paid by the Corporation. In case the res. Pondent were not in the employment of the Corporation aid were still in the employment of the Government as has been contended, the. Corporation cold not have paid their salary. The payment of the salary by the Corporation itself is sufficient to repeal the contention. No effective answer has been provided by the learned counsel for the appellant to the view thus entertained by me.
13. V ' In the circumstances the appeal is dismissed.