MUHAMMAD ARIF Versus Messrs GENERAL TYRE & RUBBER CO. (PAK.) LTD.

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 17-9-1986, passed by the learned Sind Labour Court No. IV at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that the appellant claimed to have been a permanent workman in the respondent establishment and his services were terminated without any reason, so being aggrieved he filed his present grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969.

3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition on the ground that the appellant was appointed purely on temporary basis as a helper, therefore, prior to completion of a period of 9 months his services were terminated. The respondent establishment further claimed that the appellant was not competent to maintain his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 which was 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 has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heared Mr. Gohar Iqbal the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Rafat Usmani, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It is an admitted position that on 2-4-1985 the appellant was appointed purely on temporary basis and that he had accepted the terms and conditions as such of the appointment letter. It is also an admitted position that his services were terminated before completion of any probationary period as there was no mention that the appellant will be absorbed as permanent workman after completion of probationary tenure. The appellant has also miserably failed to establish any bias or prejudice on behalf of the respondent establishment The witness, namely, Assdullah who was also a member of the C.B.A. Union had conceded to the fact that the services of the appellant were purely temporary and in the termination of his service there was no victimization or mala fides, There are also some documents on record which apparently show that the signatures of the appellant differ from each other. In view of these facts on record and the legal aspects, I would hold that there is nothing wrong with the impunged order, so, I would maintain the same.

6. For the reasons stated by me above I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and I would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed. ,

A.E./1-'302/Lb. S.

Appeal dismissed.

.