Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑275 of 1977, heard on 7th December, 1977.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 37 read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.I (b) Worker appointed temporarily for specific period Cannot claim status of being permanent after 3 months‑‑Termina tion in accordance with terms of appointment, held, not objection able‑‑Re‑instatement awarded‑ by Labour Court set aside by appellate Tribunal in appeal.

National Shipping Corporation, Karachi v, Sanaul Haq 1974 P L C 284 rel.

Ghulam Hassan for. Appellant,

Respondent No. 2 in person.

Date of hearing : 7th December 1977.

This appeal on behalf of Messrs Amin Fabrics Ltd., Kotri, is directed against an order of the learned Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad Sind accepting the present respondent's application under section. 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, arid directing Messrs Amin Fabrics Ltd., Kotri to re‑instate the applicant/respondent forthwith with all back benefits.

2. The brief facts giving rise to this matter are that the respondent Bashir Ahmad was appointed by the appellants Messrs Amin Fabrics Ltd., Kotri, as a temporary worker for a specified period of 4 months only commencing from 28th February 1976 as per photostat copy of the appointment letter marked 'A‑1' as Exh. 'A.W‑1/A'. Upon the comple tion of this period of 4 months, the services of this temporary worker were terminated by the appellants through their letter dated 23rd June 1976, wherein they briefly stated that "in terms of your appointment letter dated 13th March 1976, your services stand terminated with effect from 27th June 1976". Aggrieved by this letter, the Respondent, on 29th June 1976, sent a grievance notice to the appellants alleging that he is a permanent employee of theirs and that his services have been terminated because the appellants have come to know of his Trade Union activities with other Companies in the year 1972‑73 and again in 1974‑75, hence on account of revenge against him, the appellants have terminated his services. On 13th July, 1976, the appellants replied to this Grievance Notice denying the allegations levelled against them and merely reiterat ing that the termination order dated 23rd June 1976, "is according to Law as it is a case of termination, issued in terms of your appointment letter dated 13th March 1976. As such the question of your re‑instatement does not arise" The respondent, then filed his application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in the aforesaid Labour Court omitting all mentions of his appointment letter dated 13th March 1976, Exh. 'A. W.‑1‑A' in the case. To this application, the appellants submitted their reply statement repeating that the respondent was engaged by them as a temporary employee with effect from 28th February 1976 for a specified period of four months on a temporary basis as per his letter of appointment dated 13th March 1976. The appellants further pointed out that, therefore, the applicant becoming permanent worker on completion of 3 months, does not arise. The personnel Manager of the appellant Mills Mr. Attaullah Khan also filed his personal affidavit repeating that the applicant was appointed for a period of 4 months on 13th March 1976 on a temporary bass and that his services were terminated on 27th June 1976 as per the terms of his employment. In his cross‑examination, this witness has stated that "it is incorrect to suggest that the appointment letter filed by us alongwith our reply statement is a false or forged document. It is also incorrect that the copy of the appointment letter was nut delivered to the Applicant". Despite all this material on record, the learned Lower Court reached the conclusion that the respondent/applicant's services were terminated illegally without show‑cause notice and, therefore, directed that he be re‑instated with all back benefits.

3. I have heard Mr. Ghulam Hassan, Representative on behalf of the appellants and the respondent himself in person.

4. To me, it is plain on the basis of the appointment letter Exh. 'A.W‑1‑A' that the respondent was appointed by the appellants as a temporary hand and for a period of 4 months only to work as a Dallap‑man in the Carding Section of their Mills at Kotri. A perusal of this Exhibit shows that it bears in its bottom left hand corner, the left hand thumb‑impression of the respondent together with a written endorsement showing that it had been served upon the respondent and received by him, it is pointed out by Mr. Ghulam Hassan that Mills and Factories do engage temporary hands on a contract basis for limited periods when they are hard pressed with heavy and rush orders. It is on this basis that the respondent was admitted to the services of the appellant Mills. Now, it has been argued by the respondent that this appointment letter Exh. ' 1‑A' was at no time given to him by the appellants and that it was only in the Lower Court when the Appellants filed their reply statement, that they produced this appointment letter and the respondent Bashir Ahmad came to know of its existence. But this is not the factual position. As mentioned above, this appointment letter bears the left hand thumb‑impression of the respondent Bashir Ahmad in token of its receipt by him and further, as Mr. Ghulam Hassan has pointed out, the appellants in their reply of 13th July 1976 to the grievance notice of the respondent, have clearly referred to this appointment letter and to the temporary nature of the respondent's contract with them, thereby ruling out of any question of his reinstate ment in their service.

5. It was also argued by the respondent Bashir Ahmad that in as much as he was appointed as a Dallap‑man, the nature of whose work is permanent, that, therefore, his appointment fulfilled all the essential requirements/ingredients in the definition of a 'permanent workman' as contained in section 1(b) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Com mercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. He also submitted that no temporary workman can be appointed on a permanent job. However, Mr. Ghulam Hassan in reply to this contention invited my attention to the case of The National Shipping Corporation, Karachi v. Sanaul Haq (1974 P L C 284), where my learned predecessor Mr, Justice Inamullah Khan has held that "where the services of the respondent had been terminated under the terms of his contract of service, it cannot be said that there was any violation of any right guaranteed to the respondent under any law".

6. In this view of the matter, then, I reached the decision at the conclusion of the hearing of this appeal in Court that this Appeal must be allowed and that the Decision of the learned Lower Court set aside and I, there and then, announced an order to this effect. This judgment contains the reasons for that order.

Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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