1. DECISION ' The above-cited four appeals have been filed by the respective workmen against the orders, dated 20th November 1974 passed in their individual cases by the learned Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court, Multan, dismissing their petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter mentioned as the Ordinance. Since common issue is to be determined in these appeals, the present decision will dispose of them all.
2. ' According to the appellants mentioned at Serial Nos, 1, 3, 4 they were godown-keepers and according to the one mentioned at Serial No, 2 above he was a peon in the service of the respondent Establishment (Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Vehari. It is a common ground of all the appellants that their services have been terminated illegally without giving them any show- cause notice whereas they have been in service as permanent workmen. On the other hand it was maintained by the Management that they were not at all on the role of the employees of the respondent, that they were godown keepers as seasonal workers on the basis of a special contract between different commercial concerns and the Management for the watch and ward of their stocks pledged with the Management (Bank) remuneration for this duty was paid to the workers concerned after realizing of the same from the proprietors of the said concerns through cheques issued by them. I have gone through the evidence produced by the parties on the record of the learned lower Court and find that vacancies of godown-keepers do not find place in the budgetted provision of the respondent-Establishment. They are paid their dues as watchmen of the godown on the basis of some mutual arrangements between the Management and the relevant commercial concern, whose stocks pledged with the respondent are watched by the godown- keepers.
3. ' It was contended on behalf of the appellants that as the latter were appointed by the respondent as godown-keepers and ultimately terminated by him they therefore be assumed to be the workmen under the Management. But the basic point which cannot be lost sight of is the basic fact that the appellants can scarcely be regarded as permanent or temporary employees under the respondent-Establishment as not having been on the roll of its regular employees. The respondent therefore could not be compelled to keep the appellants' service intact in the absence of any budgetted provision for the godown-keepers. The impugned order therefore cannot be excepted on any valid ground and the appeals are dismissed.
4. ' However, it would be in the fitness of things for the respondent-Establishment to get suitable budget provision sanctioned within reasonable time in regard to the wages of the godown- keepers employed by it in the interest of good Management and not to keep the fate of this class of workers hanging in the balance. Because despite these workers being apparently employed by the respondent can neither claim their conditions of service from the respondent nor from commercial concerns, whose stocks are guarded by them, as for the mutual agreement between the respondent and Commercial Concerns in connection with payment of the wages of the godown- keepers it can continue and be kept intact by way of changing watch and ward fee from them to form the part of the income of the respondent for being disbursed against the wages of the godown-keepers as regular employees of the respondent. In case it is not done by the Management the workers may raise the demand in due course to safeguard their interests.