Syed BAKHTIAR AHMAD RIZVI Versus PAKISTAN STEEL FABRICATING CO. LTD.

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 11‑11‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, who had dismissed the two grievance petitions of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed that he was engaged as Junior Technical Assistant on 25‑11‑1985 and in the month of January 1986 he was paid salary at the rate of Rs.38 per day and being aggrieved he sent a grievance notice to which he was intimated that he was a daily wage worker as temporary Junior Technical Assistant and also claiming that he be issued appointment letter. The appellant further claimed that though he was appointed on .25‑11‑1985, but, his services were terminated on 19‑2‑1986 on the basis of the terms and conditions which were never agreed upon by him. According to the appellant the respondent had no locus standi to treat him as a temporary worker and had also no authority to terminate his services as of purely temporary daily wage worker, therefore, termination of his services was illegal and liable to be set aside.

3. The respondent establishment resisted the petitions of the appellant on the grounds, firstly, that he was employed on daily wages previously from 17‑2‑1985 to 11‑11‑1985 and thereafter from 25‑11‑1985 to 19‑2‑1986 on which date his services were probationery therefore, he could not maintain his grievance petitions which were liable to be dismissed.

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

5. I have heard the appellant in person and Mr. H.A. Jaffary, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment and have also carefully gone through the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments filed by both the parties. It was argued by the appellant that an action must be taken against the respondent establishment for infringement of the provision of section 2‑A of the schedule to the Standing Orders. Ordinance, 1968 as it has not issued the appointment letter to the appellant. It was further argued by the appellant that no view can be drawn except that the letter dated 25‑11‑1986 was made without lawful authority which is of no legal effect and cannot be used for or against him, employment on purely temporary basis neither was accepted by him and nor the respondent was permitted by Law to appoint workers on purely temporary basis and, therefore, the Law gives vested right to the appellant to be treated as permanent employee of the respondent establishment and as the respondent establishment has not complied with the provisions contained by section 12(1) of the Ordinance for terminating service of the appellant therefore, it was established that termination was illegal and the appellant was entitled to be reinstated in service with all back benefits. In support of his arguments, the appellant has relied upon the cases reported in 1982 P L C page 436, 1977 P L C page 310 and P L D 1980 S.C. at page 323

6. Repelling the arguments of the appellant, it was submitted by the respondent establishment that the appellant was never engaged against a job of permanent nature as he was appointed as temporary Junior Technical Assistant and on completion of the temporary job, he was correctly discharged. It was further argued by the respondent establishment that since the respondent establishment had issued appointment letter and discharge letter containing terms and conditions of employment and clearly defining the job to be temporary in nature, therefore, the authorities relied upon by the appellant are distinguishable and not applicable to his case. Mr. H. A. Jaffary, the learned Advocate for the respondent establishment has also referred me to a number of admissions on the part of the appellant that he was not medically examined nor permanent care was issued to him, that he was not registered under the Group Insurance Scheme nor has received any fringe benefits and also his character was not verified from the Police Department. All this admissions coming from the mouth of the appellant indicate that he was a temporary employee having never been engaged against the job of permanent nature. In support of his submissions, Mr. Jaffary has relied upon a case reported in 1985 P L C at page 433. In view of the above legal and factual A submissions, I am of the view that the appellant has no case and he was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, as being engaged purely on a job of temporary nature. There is nothing working in the impugned order.

7. For the reasons stated by me above. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and it is hereby maintained. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.

A.E./1115/Lb.S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed