Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 241 of 1974, decided on 28th October 1974. West Pakistan Industrial and

---S. Os. 1 & 15-Person employed against purely temporary post with express condition of termination without notice-Neither assured status of probationer nor appointed against a post likely to become permanent-Not a permanent workman irrespective of period of service and as such, not entitled to seek re-instatement on plea of termination without proper procedure laid down in S. O. 15.

This is an appeal filed by Assistant Divisional Engineer, Carrier and Coaxil Cables, Telegraphs and Telephone Department, Telephone Exchange, Multan against the order of the learned junior Labour Court, Multan, dated 27th September 1974 whereby Muhammad Ramzan respondent ex-Lineman, Coaxil Cables, was re-instated after his services were terminated by the appellant Department,-vide order, dated 1^st January 1974. The main-stay of the case of the respondent in the learned Court below was that he had worked against his post as Lineman from 2nd November 1970 to 1^st January 1974 and should have been regarded as a permanent workman whose service could not be terminated without proper procedure laid down in order 15 of the W. P. (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. On the other hand the appellant contends that the respondent was appointed purely on temporary basis with the clear understanding that his services will be terminated without any notice. I have gone through the relevant record of the learned lower Court and find that the respondent was posted against a purely temporary post and he was neither assured a status of probationer nor he was appointed against a vacancy likely to become permanent. His employment was absolutely of temporary nature to be terminable without notice by virtue of an express order of appointment in that behalf exhibited as P. B. on the record of the trial Court. The respondent does not fall under the definition of permanent workman under Standing Order 1, read with section 2(G) of the aforesaid Ordinance as detailed in the Schedule to the A Ordinance. The respondent could not make out a case in the trial Court and could not be given the relief of re-instatement against a non-existing post in the Department. The appeal is therefore accepted and the order of the learned Junior Labour Court set aside.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.