Find a Lawyer

Appea1 No. KAR‑332 of 1981, heard on 19^thAugust, 1981.

‑‑‑‑S.O. I (a)‑Badli workman employed against leave vacancy caused due to successively proceeding on leave of different permanent workers‑Total period about 4 months‑‑Such period not continuous because of un-authorised absence repeatedly on 12 occasions Could not be treated as a permanent workman and has no right to be employed when workman in whose place appointed as badli resumed duty.

Appellant in person.

Itrat Puri for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 19th August, 1981.

The services of the appellant, who was admittedly employed as a badli worker with effect from 1st April, 1979, vide Labour Recruiting Form of the respondent‑Company of the same date, were terminated with effect from 30th July, 1979, on the ground that they were no longer required. The appellant challenged the termination of his services before the learned Labour Court No. IV, which dismissed his grievance petition, by its decision, dated 7th May, 1980, on the ground that the appellant being a badli, had not become a permanent workman and that his services were lawfully terminated as they were no longer required.

2. On appeal, this Tribunal, by its order, dated 3rd December, 1980, remanded the case to the learned Labour Court with the direction to pass a fresh order, after giving opportunity‑to both sides to adduce evidence on the point in whose place, the appellant was appointed as badli worker and whether the services of the appellant were terminated due to the return of the permanent workman. On remand, the learned Labour Cpurt has held that the appellant was successfully appointed as badli against the post held by permanent workman, Muhammad Afzal, who proceeded on leave from 1st April, 1979, another permanent workman, Behram, who proceeded on leave from 1st May, 1979 to 30th June, 1979, and again as badli worker on the permanent post of worker, Abdul Rashid, who proceeded on leave with effect for 1st July, 1979 to 29th July, 1979. The appellant has now come up in appeal to this Tribunal against the aforesaid findings of the learned Labour Court.

3. I have heard the appellant in person as his learned representative Mr. Kohistani, was absent and no application for adjournment was received from him or on his behalf. I also heard Mr. Itrat Puri, the learned representative for the respondents. The case of the appellant is that as he had successfully served in the respondent‑Company for a period exceeding 3 months, he should be deemed to be a permanent workman under Standing Order 1. It may be pointed out that under the said order, a badli who has been employed for a continuous period of 3 months or for 180 days during any period of 12 consecutive months, is deemed to be a permanent worker. The essential condition, which a badli must fulfil in order to be deemed a permanent workman thus is that he must be employed for. a continuous period of 3 months or alternatively for 180 days during any period of 12 consecutive months. Although the appellant claims that he was continuously employed by the respondent‑Company with effect from 1st April, 1979 up to 30th July, 1979, i.e., for a period of 4 months, the evidence of Noor Muhammad, the Assistant Labour Officer of the respondent‑Company, establishes that the appellant was unauthorisedly absent from his duties in the month of May on 9th and 24th to 28th to the month of June, he was absent on 7th, 8th, 14th, 26th, 27th and 28th and in the month of July he was absent for half day on 15th July, 1979, and for the whole day on 1st July, 1979. .t The witness was supported by that attendance sheets which he had brought with himself and showed to the Labour Court. Further support to the evidence of the witness on this point is provided by the attendance card of the appellant for the month of July, 1979, which the appellant had himself produced before the learned Labour Court. He failed to produce the attendance cards for the months of May and June, 1979, though an application to that effect was made on behalf of the respondent‑Company to the learned Labour Court. There was thus tangible evidence before the learned Labour Court is support of its findings that the appellant was unauthorizedly absent for a number of days in the months of May, June and July, 1979, and thus cannot be said to have been continuously employed in the respondent‑Company for a period of 3 months.

4. As the appellant was employed as badli though for a successful workman, he had no right to be employed, when the workman in whose place, he was appointed as badli resumed his duties.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would uphold the decision of the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal .

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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