GOVERNMENT TRANSPORT SERVICE, LAHORE Versus RIAZ AHMAD

The decisions dated 11‑7‑1985 and 16‑7‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore have been challenged, whereby the grievance petitions of the respondents were accepted. Since common question of law is involved, both the appeals are being disposed of together through this single judgment in which Riaz Ahmad will be described as respondent No.l and Muhammad Saeed as respondent No.2.

2. In the case of respondent No.l copy of appointment order is Ex.R‑1 and in the case of respondent No.2 it is Ex.P‑1. Both the respondents were taken in service as badli conductors. The term is defined in Standing Order 1 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, according to which, badli conductor is that who is appointed against a permanent post the incumbent of which is temporarily absent from duty. Since vide Exs.R‑1 and P‑1 the respondents were appointed as badli conductors, the presumption is that the incumbents of the posts were temporarily absent and the posts were permanent. This is not mentioned in the orders of appointment that the posts were temporary. Even no documentary evidence has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the posts were temporary. A badli employee becomes permanent if he serves continuously for 90 days or for 183 days in a year with gaps. RW‑1 produced EX.R‑41 and stated in the case of Riaz Ahmed that the said respondent worked'' for 263 days in all. So far as Muhammad Saeed, respondent No.2, is concerned, he stated that he worked for 238 days from 18‑10‑1983 to 1‑10‑1984. This evidence was not rebutted by RW‑1. No document was produced to negate the testimony of the respondents. So, it stands proved that both the respondents worked for more than 183 days even in a period of less than a year. They thus became permanent on completing 183 days. Non‑payment of wages on Fridays or holidays is immaterial, since badli workers get wages for the days they actually work.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited 1962 P L C 1118 (India). The definition of permanent badli worker is not reproduced in the ruling, so this is not known if it is the same s given in Standing Order 1 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1958. So, the ruling does not appear to be germane to the facts of the cases in hand. The respondents were thus rightly declared as permanent badli conductors. RW‑1 in the case of respondent No.l stated that the said respondent was removed from service as there was no work but by no documentary evidence it has been established. RW‑1 did not say that any post was abolished and that the said respondent was the junior most. Needless to say that if some post has been abolished for want of work, the junior most has to go out first.

4. As a result both the appeals are dismissed in limine.

A.E. /1370/Lb. S Appeals dismissed.