Find a Lawyer

West Pakistan

‑‑‑S. 2 (i) and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37‑In‑service trainee‑Terms of offer of training indicating specific training period and after successful training to be considered for appointment subject to availability of vacancy Training offer cancelled on account of absence for period more than permissible period during training‑‑Claim for being considered as regular worker and grievance petition for being re‑instated, in circumstances, held, rightly rejected by Labour Court‑[Pakistan International Airlines v. Sind Labour Court No. S P L D 1980 S C 323 held not applicable].

Sind Alkalies Limited v. Muhammad Rafiq 1980 P L C 718 and Nasim Ahmed Siddiyui and another v. Pakistan Machines Tools Factory 1982 P L C 264 ref.

Pakistan International Airlines v. Sind Labour Court No. 3 P L D 1980 S C 323 held not applicable.

S. P. Lodhi for Appellant.

Kamal Mansur Alam for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 30th March, 1983.

DECISION

This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned IVth Labour Court, given on 16th October, 1982, dismissing the appellant's grievance petition preferred against his allegad termination of services on the ground that he was only a trainee and hence was not entitled to re‑instatement in service as claimed by him.

2. The admitted facts of this case are that the appellant, on the basis of his application and subsequent interview and job test was selected for admission as special trainee in the Metallurgical Training Centre, Pakistan . Steel, as Electrician II subject to the terms and conditions for admission and training in the said Centre vide letter, dated 9th December, 1980. The terms, according to the said letter, upon which the appellant was selected for the training scheme were that the duration of the training would be for twelve months but the said period could be extended if it was found necessary, that during the training period the trainee will remain under the administrative control of the Metallurgical Training Centre, that during the training period he would be allowed a consolidated stipend of Rs. 680 p. m., that during the training period he would be entitled to 28 days leave on genuine grounds, that the trainee would be trained in any trade or specially selected by the Metallurgical Training Centre, that the training programme, place of training and the duration of training would be subject to alteration/change at the discretion of the said Centre and that after successful completion of the training the trainee would be considered for employment in Pakistan Steel subject to availability of vacancy. It is an admitted position that an undertaking was given by the appellant to abide by the training programme/facility. According to the appellant, although he was selected for in‑training programme right from the first day he was posted to work as Electrician, Grade II, Coke Oven by Product Complex, in the regular process and operation and had nothing to do with the training programme. It appears that from 16th June, 1981 to 12th August, 1981 the appellant was absent from his duties. According ‑ to the appellant this absence was on account of the fact that he had fallen ill. He claimed that he had informed Mr. Saadullah Khan, Assistant Superintendent, Electric Department, about his condition on 29th June, 1981 by registered letter in which he had requested him to grant him leave till his recovery. He further claimed that during the period of his illness he had attended Dispensary of Dr. Sajid Mahmood, who had advised him treatment and to take rest till his recovery. A photostat copy of the medical certificate from Dr. Sajjid Mahmood was submitted by the appellant which indicated that he was under the treatment of the said doctor from 28th .June, 1981 to 18th July, 1981, though the absence of the appellant from his work was from 16th June, 1981 to 12th August, 1981. The appellant was given a show‑cause notice enquiring him to explain his absence. In compliance with this show cause notice he submitted an explanation but the same did not find favour with the authorities of the Metallurgical Training Centre. His admission to the Centre was cancelled with immediate effect due to unauthorised absence and poor performance vide letter, dated 28th September, 1981. The appellant challenged the cancellation. of his admission through a grievance petition filed before the learned IVth Labour Court claiming that he was in fact not a trainee but a regular workman right from the first day as he was assigned the duties of Electrician in the Coke Oven By Product Complex on a regular basis. The leaned Labour Court repelled the contention and has held that since the appellant was a trainee he was not entitled to reinstatement in service or even re‑admission to the training programme controlled by the Metallurgical Training Centre.

2. I have heard Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant, and Mr. Kamal Mansur Alam, Advocate who appeared for the respondent Corporation. It is clear from the letter of the Metallurgical Training Centre, dated 9th December, 1980, the terms whereof were fully agreed to by the appellant under his undertaking, dated 16th December, 1980, that the appellant was not taken up in any employment in the respondent Corporation but only as a trainee in an in‑training programme. No doubt in‑training programme involved the working by the appellant in the Coke Oven Department in the capacity of Electrician II but this on‑spot training was part of the training programme and was envisaged by the letter under which the offer of the training was made to the appellant and fully accepted by him. The note in the said letter clearly indicates that this was purely an offer in the Metallurgical Training Centre for training and should not be considered as an offer of employment in the Pakistan Steel. Having accepted the offer of training and having joined the training pro gramme under the specific terms offered in the above letter it is not open to the appellant now to claim that he was a regular workman and not a trainee under the in‑training programme operated by the Metallurgical Training Centre of the respondent Corporation. In the case of Sind Alkalies Ltd. v. Muhammad Rafiq (1980 P L C 718), it was found that the‑respondent had worked as apprentice fitter for about two years in the Sind Alkalies Limited under an apprentice training programme. The provisions of the Apprenticeship Ordinance, 1962, were not found to be applicable to the Sind Alkalies Limited. It was, however, claimed by the respondent that he was an apprentice worker in the Sind Alkalies Limited and since his services had been terminated, without any reason, after he had served for about two years in the said capacity he was entitled to reinstatement in service. It was held that since the provisions of the Apprenticeship Ordinance, 1962, were not applicable to the Sind Alkalies Limited, the respondent could not be deemed to be an apprentice workman nor could he be deemed to be any other type of workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders but was merely an in‑trainee person relieved after the completion of his training period. In the case of Nasim Ahmed Siddiqui and another v. Pakistan Machine Tools factory (1982 P L C 264), it was held that a training scheme containing no surety of appointment after completion of training, did not entitle the trainee to immediate employment after successful completion of the training but appointment or employment was a privilege of the Management to be considered depending upon the availability of vacancies. In the instant case the claim of the appellant for employment rests on a much weaker footing. Admittedly he has not completed the training and fact during the training period he was absent for a period of almost two months. As already indicated, the training scheme which the appellant was to undergo allowed a maximum period of leave of twenty‑eight days. This period is considered reasonable in view of the fact that the training programme had to be completed within a period of twelve months. Mr. S. P. Lodhi, the representative of the appellant, submitted that the appellant was a regular workman and‑should be considered to be at least al temporary workman and in support of his contention he relied upon the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case reported as Pakistan International Airlines v. Sind Labour Court No. 5 (P L D 1980 S C 323) but I find no substance in his contention nor does the ruling relied upon by the learned representative lend any support to his arguments. The appellant had already accepted an in‑trainee programme containing the explicit provisions that it was merely a training programme and not an offer of employment and be cannot be allowed to resile or take a different stand from the undertaking under which he had accepted the offer of the in‑trainee programme.

3. For the reasons discussed by me above,. I find no merit in. this appeal and would dismiss the same.

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.