S. SAJJAD ALI SHAH Versus OPERATIONAL HEAD BULK WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT, PAKISTAN STEEL, KARACHI

DECISION

This appeal calls in question the order of the Labour Court by which the petitioner's application for reinstatement came to. be dismissed. It arose in the following circumstances.

2. It is alleged that on 27‑4-1989 the petitioner came to be appointed as a Dispenser at the Gharo Pumping Station Dispensary for a period of one month only. However, he was not being made permanent though his services had continued. For this he had sent a grievance notice dated 2‑5‑1991 and getting no reply had filed the petition with the prayer "to regularise the service of the applicant and make ‑him permanent and also make payment of all the back benefits etc. etc."

3. In the written reply filed on behalf of the respondent it was alleged that he was appointed on temporary basis and his services were terminated in writing on 30‑3‑1991. This letter of termination was duly served on the petitioner, who had signed the same in token of its receipt. He had also collected all his dues and the entire claim was malicious. The other contentions also came to be denied.

4. The petitioner was his own witness and Nabi Bux Larik, Dr. Muhammad Ibrahim and Syed Suleman appeared on behalf of the respondents.

5. The Labour Court found that since it was satisfactorily established that the services of the petitioner had been terminated in writing on 30‑3‑1991 the question of making him permanent did not arise. It, therefore, dismissed the petition.

6. I am afraid the appeal is devoid of all merits. The respondents have produced the letter of termination and there is the signature of the petitioner by way of acknowledgement. The document is on the record. It is true that he has denied the authorship, but its comparison with the admitted documents on the record leaves no manner of doubt that the signature thereon is that of the appellant. It is not his case that he has received the pay after the month of March. The attendance sheets have been produced and speak for themselves. Otherwise too the suggestion to Nabi Bux Larik in the cross‑examination was that the appellant was in their service up to 29‑5‑1991 only. The petition has been filed on 6‑6‑1991.

7. The petition as filed does not lie. The appellant had ceased to be an employee of the respondent and the question of regularising his service was wide of the mark. It is enough to dismiss the appeal. I will, therefore, uphold the order and dismiss the appeal.

H.B.T./2194/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.