SUPERINTENDENT, POST OFFICE, D.G. KHAN Versus AZIZ MUHAMMAD

This is an appeal preferred against the decision dated 16‑7‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent was employed as a mail peon. His services were terminated on 16‑11‑1984. He challenged the order contending that he was a permanent employee; so without being charge‑sheeted or holding an inquiry he could not be removed from service. Relying upon the statement of RW‑1 the learned lower Court has held that the respondent was a permanent employee. R.W. 1 stated only this much in favour of the respondent that the latter had remained in service for 2 and a half or three months. He did not say that the post was permanent. He rather stated that as there was no vacancy, so the services of the respondent were terminated. The learned lower Court without the presence of any evidence held that against permanent post the respondent was employed. The respondent produced only two appointment orders namely Exhs. P‑1 and P‑3. Each time he was appointed for one month in a leave vacancy. Total period is two months. A leave vacancy can never be regarded as permanent vacancy. However, since admittedly the respondent had qualified the examination meant for mail peons, he should have been kept on the waiting list and absorbed if and when any permanent vacancy had occurred.

3. It is doubtful if Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies to Post Offices, which are being run by the Central Government. No rules are on the file, so it cannot be definitely said if Standing Orders Ordinance applies or does not apply.

4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellants are directed to absorb the respondent in service according to Rules, if there is a vacancy.

A.E./226/Lb.P

Appeal accepted.