GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others' vs PUNJAB APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and others
These appeals, with leave of the Court, challenge the judgment of the Lahore High Court upholding the decisions of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and Punjab Labour Court, which regularized the services of the private respondents who worked as Store Men in the Irrigation Department. The core legal question was whether the respondents, initially appointed on a temporary or ad hoc basis against permanent nature posts, attained the status of permanent workmen under the relevant labor laws after completing ninety days of continuous service, and whether they qualified as workers rather than work-charged employees under the applicable ordinance. The Supreme Court held that since the respondents continuously served for more than ninety days against permanent posts with uninterrupted continuity, they acquired the status of permanent workmen under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and could not be arbitrarily terminated. The key principle laid down is that continuous service exceeding ninety days against permanent posts, coupled with indicia of regular employment such as payment for holidays, confers permanent workman status regardless of initial temporary or ad hoc nomenclature.
- Whether temporary or ad hoc employees become permanent workmen after completing ninety days of continuous service against permanent posts?
- Does continuous service of more than ninety days without deduction of salary for holidays distinguish a worker from a work-charged employee?
- Are concurrent findings of fact by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the nature of employment open to interference without proof of misreading or non-reading of evidence?
- Section 22-A(8)(g), Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
- West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968
' IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, C.J.---These three appeals, with leave of the Court, are directed against the judgment dated 15-6-1998 passed by a learned Judge in Chambers of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petitions Nos.11061 to 11063 of 1998.
2. Succinctly stated, the facts are that private respondents in the above appeals were 'Store Men' in the Central Store Division I.B. Canal Bank, Irrigatoin Department, Mughalpura, Lahore. They had seven to sixteen years' continuous service in their credit. Initially, all of them were recruited on temporary or ad hoc basis for a period of three months, though the post they held, were of permanent nature. After giving grievance notices to the appellant Department, they approached Punjab Labour Court No,1, seeking confirmation/regularization of their services from the respective dates of their appointments under section 22-A (8)(g) read with section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Their applications were allowed by the Labour Court vide its judgment dated 2-8-1994. The appellant-Department preferred appeals before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, which were dismissed vide judgment, dated 14-3-1998. Being aggrieved with the latter decision, the appellant-department approached the Lahore High Court, Lahore by filing three Writ Petitions, which also met the same fate vide impugned judgment, dated 15-6-1998.
3. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 24-9-1999 to consider the following points: "(2) Mr. Muhammad Anwar Ghuman, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners contends that the order of the Punjab Labour Court-1, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and the High Court are based on erroneous assumption of fact, in that, the respondents were not appointed against permanent posts, inasmuch as, the sanctioned strength of the relevant posts was only 15 while the respondents, who are 30 in number were working as work-charged employees."
"(3) The next question for consideration is whether the respondents are workers within the meaning of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and had been performing their duties as low-paid employee and whether after the completion of 90 days period they had become permanent workmen or were work-charged employee?"
4. Mr. Maroof Ahmed, Assistant Executive Engineer, Central Store Division, Irrigation Department, on behalf of the appellant-Department contends that the respondents were appointed under P.W.D.
Code according to which their services could be terminated any time when there did not exist any work or they were away from job without any notice for a period of more than 10 days.
5. In view of the submission made by Mr. Maroof Ahmed, the basic question for consideration is whether the private respondents became permanent workmen by efflux of time. There is a concurrent finding of fact by the Labour Court as well as the Labour Appellate Tribunal of exclusive jurisdiction that the private respondents continued in service for more that 90 days in the posts against which they were initially employed, which were permanent in nature. This being so, the learned Judge in Chambers was right in upholding the findings recorded by the Labour Court as well as the Labour Appellate Tribunal that on expiry of 90 days' period the private respondents assumed the status of permanent workmen not liable to be terminated without conforming with the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance No,IV of 1968. It is also an admitted fact that the salaries of the private respondents were not deducted for Fridays and other holidays, which fact also shows uninterrupted continuity of their services making them distinguishable from the 'worked-charged employees'. A finding of fact has also been recorded in the impugned judgment that 70 permanent posts are still lying vacant in the appellant Department. This being so, by no stretch of the imagination, the private respondents can be held as ad hoc or temporary employees. The impugned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity whatsoever. The departmental representative has been unable to point out any misreading or non-reading of evidence on record.
6. Resultantly, all the above appeals, fail and are hereby dismissed. No costs.
Cited by 1 case
- MUHAMMAD BUX and 2 others vs D.E. TELEGRAPH, NAWABSHAH 2005 PLC (C.S.) 435