TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, RAHIMYAR KHAN and others vs HANIF

ORDER

' TASSADUQ HUSSIAN JILLANI,This order shall dispose of Civil Petitions Nos.699-L of 2006, 700-L of 2006, 701-L of 2006, 702-L of 2006, 703-L of 2006, 704-L of 2006 and 705-L of 2006, as the questions of law and fact in all are similar.

2. The respondents in the afore-referred petitions, are employees of the petitioners-Tehsil Municipal Administration, in Grade-L' They were appointed as far back as 1985 and ever since then they are working without any complaint whatsoever. The petitioner-T.M.A. On 17-10-2002, requested the Secretary, Local Government and Rural Development, Government of Punjab to regularize respondents' services since employees similarly placed in Town Committee Kot Samaba were regularized by the Government. The Government refused to accede to the request vide letter, dated 21-3-2005. The respondent-employees challenged the afore-referred letter before the Punjab Labour Court and the said learned Court vide the order, dated 5-7-2005, allowed their applications, set aside the order/letter, dated 21-3-2005 and held that respondents are permanent workmen and, as such entitled for benefits of a permanent and regular employee. In holding so the learned Labour Court not only examined the nature of the duties which the respondents were performing but also took note of the observation of the Audit Official to the effect that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of respondent-employees' case the Government should relax the rule and regularize their services. The Court also relied on two judgments of this Court i.e, Secretary to Government of N.-W.F.P. Zakat/Social Welfare Department, Peshawar and another v.

Sadullah Khan 1996 SCM R 413 and Muhammad Shoaib and 2 others v. Government of N.-W.F.P.

Through the Collector, D.I. Khan and others 2005 SCM R 85. This order has been affirmed by the learned Lahore High Court vide the impugned judgment, dated 6-3-2006 in terms of which petitioners' appeals were dismissed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners-T.M.A. Submits that both the Courts below have not appreciated that respondents were temporary employees; that at no stage they were held out any promise of regularization; that the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to examine the vires of the letter, dated 21-3-2005 vide which the Government of Punjab had declined the request of the petitionersT.M.A. For regularizing the services of the respondent-employees and that even the learned High Court did not advert to this aspect and dismissed petitioners' appeals.

4. On Court query, learned counsel for the petitioners admits that the respondent-employees are performing their duties ever since their appointments in 1985 to best of their ability and there has been no complaint whatsoever. He further admits that on account of their performance and the fact that in a neighbouring T.M.A. Employees similarly placed have been regularized, the petitioners had sent a reference to the Government for their regularization which was declined B notwithstanding that similar relief was provided by the Ministry of Works to 100 Works Charge Employees to which reference has been made in para.6 of the impugned judgment.

5. In the afore-referred facts and circumstances when the respondents are working for the last more than 20 years against the posts which are permanent in nature, the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below are unexceptionable. No case for interference is made out. The petitions lacking in merit are accordingly dismissed and .