GULZAR ABBAS Versus DISTRICT MANAGER, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI

DECISION

These five appeals in which a common order of the authorities of the K.T.C. was challenged before the Labour Court and is now before this Tribunal have arisen in the following circumstances:

2. Gulzar Abbas was appointed as a conductor and the other four as drivers. Gulzar Abbas states to have been working as Traffic. Assistant for about ten years and the rest as Yard Masters for over six years. Be that as it may on the 27th of November, 1990 they were served with an order which ran in the following words:

"The following employees of this Depot who are engaged for other duties are hereby withdrawn immediately. They are directed to report to their respective In charges for their original duty for which they were appointed:'

3. After settling the preliminaries they had filed petitions before two Labour Courts at Karachi; the first four were disposed of by a common order.

4. The cases of the appellants before the Labour Court were propped up on two contentions firstly that they had worked for over six years (in the case of Gulzar Abbas over 10 years) and therefore they had become permanent on their jobs, and secondly that they were covered up by a settlement With the management and the union according to which workers who were doing other jobs for a period of six years had to be made permanent on the posts held by them.

5. Both these contentions were repelled by the Labour Court on the short ground that continuity in the period of their tenures was not discernible any way. Ghulam Rabbani and Iftikhar Hussain urged that they had worked for about 6 years and others for about 5 years. Even Gulzar Abbas arrogating a longer period was also not specific.

6. Admittedly there was nothing in writing about their movement to higher grades. There is nothing to show from any quarter as to for how long they had worked in the capacity of Traffic Assistants or' Yard Masters, and whether it was with breaks or continuous. There is also nothing to show as to whether they were getting the pay of the posts they allege to. have been occupying.

7. It appears that the Department was being run haphazaredly and it was free for all sort of a situation existing all over. As the appellants have utterly tailed to put any construction on their claim, the mere assertion that they had been discharging duties on a higher post is not enough. There is no merit in these. appeals, as no rights are involved. I will therefore uphold the impugned orders and dismiss the appeals.

H.B.T./2193/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.