JUDGMENT SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.- Faryad Ali respondent No. 2 who had been employed as Supervisor, had assailed before the National Industrial Relations Commission, an order dated 2.4.1996 terminating his services. The learned Single Member of the Commission dismissed his petition vide order dated 10.8.1999 whereagainst an appeal was preferred by him, which was accepted by the learned Full Bench of the Commission on 22.5.2000, declining, however, the back benefits to him. The present petition has been filed by the Superintending Engineer and the Executive Engineer of the Public Works Department to assail the same.
2. It is contended by the learned Additional Advocate- General that respondent No. 2 had been employed temporarily on work charge basis whose services were liable to termination automatically and at any time in terms of the letter of appointment dated 21.5.1995 and 4.9.1995. It is contended that the learned Full Bench of the Commission has erred in law in ordering his reinstatement. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 is not available, however, he has pleaded his case in person and has been heard.
3. The perusal of the documents on the record would show that respondent N< ? Was initially appointed vide letter dated 21.5.1995 w.e.f. i.b 1995 to 28.6.1995. It appeared to be a project appointment with a stipulation that his service will terminate automatically on expiry of the said period, however, vide letter dated 4.9.1995 his appointment was extended w.e.f.
2.7.1995 to 30.9/1995. There are two letters of the same date, the other letter mentions the date up to to 31.12.1995. The correctness of this later letter js, however, disputed by the petitioners. Be that as it may, a .Careful perusal of the termination letter dated 2.4.1996 would remove any such anomaly itself inasmuch as the same makes mention of another appointment letter dated 22.1.1996, copy whereof has been placed on record by respondent No. 2 as annex: R-3. According to that he had to continue in service-up to 30.6.1996. So the relevance of the date/period mentioned in either of the letters dated 4.9.1995 loses its significance. The reason for terminating his service was absence from duty w.e.f. 4.3.1996. It was in this context that the learned Full Bench of the Commission considered and appreciated the matter and viewed the same in the perspective noted below:- "In the present case it is established by evidence that the appellant is a workman and has worked for more than 9 months on a post of permanent nature, In that case he is to be treated as regular anc^ permanent employee. His termination without show-cause notice and enquiry is not sustainable in law. The learned Single Bench in the impugned judgment has observed that the appellant was appointed firstly for only 21 days and secondly for two months and 28 days. This fact is not. Borne out from the record. On the contrary record clearly 'shows that the appellant was appointed on 21.5.1995 and was removed on 24.4.1996, which Clearly shows that appellant has worked for more than 9 months. The principle 'aid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of ' Pakistan is fully applicable to the case of the appellant."
4. The view so taken by the learned Full Bench of the commission is borne out from the documents on the record and has remained unrebutted. Indeed the plea taken by the petitioners runs counter to the letter of termination itself, which goes to show that the respondent had continued to remain in service on the strength of orders issued successively including the last one i.e. 22.1.1996. The learned Full Bench of the Commission was thus* fully justified in invoking the principle laid down in Executive Engineer, Central Civil Division. Pak P. W.D. Quetta v. Abdul Aziz and others (PLD 1996 S.C.
610). No jurisdictional error or illegality has been brought home to the order, of the learned Full Bench of the Commission, it does n6t warrant any interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction.
As a result of the above, the petition has no merit, it is dismissed accordingly.
Accordingly.