MUHAMMAD AYOOB Versus PERSONEL MANAGER, WAZIR ALI INDUSTRIES LTD., HYDERABAD
ORDER
1. Applicant claims himself to have been appointed as Helper firstly on 7‑2‑1985. He was then terminated without any reason whatsoever but was again appointed on 16‑11‑1985. After few months service he was again removed without any written order. Finally, he was employed as Helper from 18‑5‑1986 and continued there for more than 3 months and so he acquired the status of a permanent workman. No service documents were however issued to him. He was terminated from 24‑12‑1986 without any written order and so he served the grievance notice dated 11‑3‑1987 which remained unreplied . Accordingly, he has filed the present petition for his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
2. In the reply statement the jurisdiction of this Court has been questioned. According to it, the applicant was never appointed on 7‑2‑1985. In fact, according to respondent the applicant was first appointed as Badli worker during the period from 16‑11‑1985 to 30‑11‑1985 in place of one employee Daulat Khan and who had proceeded on leave. On his return the applicant was paid off as per the documents placed on record. Again he was employed as Badli worker for a specified period from 7‑12‑1985 to 6‑1‑1986 in place of one Malik Aman on leave. He was accordingly paid off after the expiry of the wage period. He was again engaged as Badli worker for a specified period from 18‑5‑1986 to 7‑7‑1986 and after the expiry of the said period he was paid off. On 7‑10‑1986 he was taken up as temporary worker upto 7‑‑11‑1986 and was paid off after the expiry of the said period. Finally, he was engaged for one month from 25‑11‑1986 on account of absence and was paid off after the expiry of the said period. It has therefore been pleaded that since he was appointed only for a specified period in a casual vacancy as Badli or temporary worker and had not completed the period of 3 months, he did not attain the status of a permanent workman. Accordingly, he cannot maintain the present petition.
3. The applicant alone examined himself in support of his case and produced certain documents to substantiate his version. On behalf of the respondent one Syed Nawab Aslam, Deputy Manager (Administration) and one Syed Rashid Ahmed, Assistant Manager (Personnel) have been tendered in evidence. I have heard Mr.Shaikh Wahid Bux, Representative for the applicant, and Mr. Abdul Ghani Khan, Advocate for the respondent. I have also considered the material on record.
4. The submission of Mr Wahid Bux is that the applicant was appointed and terminated from time to time without any written order and since the termination of the applicant is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Standing Orders 12, the applicant has a right to maintain this petition. He submits that the applicant was appointed from time to time from 7‑2‑1985 and finally he was engaged from 16‑5‑1986 and continued to work as such upto 24‑12‑1986. Accordingly, in his submissions the applicant having put in 3 months continuous service acquired the status of a permanent workman and so even otherwise the impugned termination is untenable and unwarranted. Mr. Wahid Bux submits that in fact he has been removed only because he had complained to the Minister concerned against the highhandedness of the management and so the termination is mala fide. Lastly, he submits that there is nothing on record to show that the applicant was engaged against any absentee and that any action was ever taken against such absentee. The submission of Mr. Ghani, on the other hand, is that the applicant was provenly engaged on casual and temporary vacancies and was always paid off whenever his services were not required. Lastly, he was engaged on 25‑11‑1986 against an absentee and was so discharged on 24‑12‑1986. Accordingly, he cannot claim himself to have attained the status of a permanent worker. He also submits that for a Badli or a casual worker oral termination is sufficient and no written termination order is required by law. He placed reliance on 1981 P L C 634; 1986 P L C 1128 and 1987 P L C 15, in reply to the authorities relied upon by Mr. Wahid Bux via. 1981 P L C 687, 1982 P L C 87, 1983 P L C 959 and 1984 PLC 376, 1097 and 1296.
5. I have examined the entire material on record with care and caution and I am of the firm view that the applicant has not been able to substantiate his assertion of a permanent workman. The documents on record as also the pleadings of the parties hereto clearly show that the applicant was always appointed for a specified period either as a Badli worker or against some absentee. In any case, the applicant's assertion that he continuously worked from 18‑5‑1986 upto 24‑12‑1986 has beep belied by his own document A/41 in as much as according to this application said to have been submitted by him to the Minister of Industries on 25‑10‑1986, he was lastly appointed on 7‑10‑1986. in this way. he has himself pleaded that at the time of his termination on 24‑12‑1986 he had not completed continuous 3 months service and so he did not attain the status of a permanent workman. Since he has filed the present petition only on the ground that by virtue of his continuous employment from 18‑5‑86 he became a permanent workman, his this petition is not sustainable in law when it is proved by his own document that he did not have continuous 3 months employment at the time of his impugned termination. In this factual and legal position, it is wholly immaterial and irrelevant to examine the vires or genuinenes of the documents brought on record on behalf of the respondent or to examine the other evidence on record. I would have no hesitation to record here that when the petitioner admittedly suppressed the real facts and did not come to this Court with clean hands, he does not deserve any sympathy nor his petition would be maintainable in law.
6. In this view of the matter, this application is dismissed as not maintainable.
7. S. Q. /1054/Lb.S Petition dismissed.