Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑356 of 1981, heard on 13th August, 1981

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑

‑‑‑‑ S. O. 1 (a) (e) & 12 (3) Temporary Workmen"‑Workmen employed temporarily explicitly for limited period and on work of temporary nature‑Remain, temporary irrespective of period for which employed‑''Typist employed to clear backlog and his services terminated by written order on completion of said work‑Termi nation of services, 3n circumstances, held, not exceptionable.

The services of the appellant, who was employed as an Assistant/ Typist, on daily wages, by the P. I. A., the respondents herein, with effect from 13^thJuly, 1980, were discontinued with effect from 28^thOctober, 1980. Alongwith the appellant, the services of 4 other Typists were also discontinued. The appellant challenged the discontinuance of his services before the learned IVth Labour Court, which has dismissed his grievance petition by its decision, dated 4^thJuly, 1981. The appel lant has challenged the said decision in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. I have heard the appellant, who has appeared in person. It is. the case of the appellant himself in his grievance petition that he was appointed on daily wages. The order of appointment clearly states that the appointment of the appellant and 6 other persons, who were appoin ted by the same order, was purely temporary and for a period of 80 days Since the services of the appellant were explicitly engaged for a limited period and as his services were discontinued, when the work for which he was engaged was completed or at least there was no longer any work for which the services of the appellant could be required, his services, in my opinion, were rightly terminated by the respondents, Clause (2) of Standing Order 12 provides that the services of temporary Workmen can be terminated at any time without notice. The only requirement of law in this behalf are that the order must be in writing and should explicitly state the reason for terminating the services. Both these requirements have been fulfilled in the instant case. It has been explained by Syed Zeeshan, Manpower/Administration Coordinator in the Engineering Department, that the appellant was appointed as a typist on a purely tem porary basis for clearing the backlog of the pending work in the Engi neering Department, and that when the said work was cleared, the appellant's services were no longer required and hence they were temrinated. Since the appellant was temporary on work of temporary nature he continued to be a temporary workman irrespective of the period for, which he had been employed.

3. For the reason stated by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.

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.