SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, ISLAMABAD Versus ISRAR AHMAD KHAN

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellants against an impugned order, dated 29‑1‑1987 passed by the Sind Labour Court No. 1, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, directing his re‑instatement in service with full back benefits.

2. The case of the respondent was that he was appointed as Telephone Operator in 1980 and on 3‑11‑1982,' his services were terminated so he filed a grievance petition bearing No.17 of 1983 before the said Labour Court which ended into a compromise between the parties. However, the respondent claimed that on 10‑3‑1985, his services were again terminated on 10‑5‑1985, but, subsequently he was taken on duty on 24‑4‑1985, and again on 7‑7‑1985, his services were terminated without assigning any reason. The respondent, being aggrieved with all these state of affairs, had finally served a grievance notice and, thereafter filed the grievance petition before the learned Labour Court who had passed the impugned order.

3. The case of the appellants before the learned Labour Court was that on 19‑8‑1980, the respondent was appointed‑as an unqualified Telephone Operator on purely temporary basis on the terms and conditions that his services would be terminated at any time without assigning any reason. The appellants claim that in consequence of a Case No.17 of 1983, the respondent was again appointed on 25‑6‑1984, but on 1‑3‑1985 his services were again terminated on the ground that there was so regular post of Telephone Operator vacant in the Garden Telephone Division, Karachi. So, he was again appointed against a leave vacancy on 24‑4‑1985 and thereafter his services were terminated on 7‑7‑1985, thus, he rendered service in piecemeal under stopgap arrangements as an unqualified Telephone Operator. The appellants claimed that the respondent did not appear and qualify the competitive recruitment examination of Telephone Operators, therefore, the grievance petition was not maintainable as the respondent covered by the definition of Civil Servant, hence it was liable to be dismissed.

4. Both the parties filed their affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined and thereafter, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned order, hence the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Izhar Alam Farooqi, the learned Advocate for the appellants and the respondents in person, and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. From the record it is not proved that on the last time the respondent was appointed on temporary basis as there is only a document i.e. appointment letter No.OE‑11/TO/69, dated 13‑8‑1978 showing that the respondent was appointed as officiating Telephone Operator with effect from 19‑2‑1980. Admittedly his services were terminated and he filed a case and during the pendency of that case he was re‑appointed on temporary basis against a leave vacancy and again he was appointed against a leave vacancy on 24‑4‑1985, but, no documentary evidence was brought on record in support of this contensions. From the contents of appointment letter of 1980, it was not meant for the first appointment on what terms and conditions he was appointed as it was absolutely silent. From the record it is crystal clear that the evidence of one Abdul Hamid Qureshi, a witness of the appellants was quite doubtful, therefore, a confidence could not be held upon him. Thus, it is established that the removal from services of the respondent at various intervals clearly suggested that the appellants wanted to get rid of him, hence, there is nothing wrong with the impugned order, which is well reasoned, therefore, I would maintain the same.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would maintain the impugned order and would dismiss the present appeal. The respondent is directed to be re‑instated in service with only a modification that he would be entitled to fifty per cent (50) back benefits which are directed to be paid to him after due and proper verification.

A.E. /1107/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.