Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GA‑37 of 1978, heard on 10th May, 1982.

---‑Ss. 25‑.A & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition‑Petitioner to establish his right‑‑Petitioner a work‑charged employee seeking regularisation Regularisation according to Government policy to be made in phased programme‑No proof that those regularised were junior to petition er‑Petitioner having failed to prove his right for being regularised prior to those already regularised Labour Court, held, rightly dismissed grievance petition.

A Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheerna for Appellants.

Ch. Bashir Ahmad for Respondents Nos. 1 to 2.

S. M. R. Anwar for Respondents Nos. 3 to 8.

Date of hearing : 10th May, 1982.

This appeal arises froth the decision, dated 16th January, 1978 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellants for being regularised was dismissed.

2. The appellants were work charged employees as Laboratory Assistants Nandipur, Gujranwala. The Government issued instructions to make work charged employees regular. Previously, it was decided that the work charged persons be regularised in three stages, commencing from the financial year 1972‑73. Vide letter Exh. P‑1 the policy was changed and it was directed that the programme of making work‑charged employees regular be completed in five years. It was, therefore, decided that in the financial year 1972‑73 twenty per cent of the work charged employees would be regularised. Schedule of new expenditure under the head establishment for the work charged establishment for the the year 1972‑73, was invited at the rate of twenty per cent for the creation of posts. Respondents Nos. 3 to 8 were impleaded as parties since they had been regularised and according to the case of the appellants they 'were ignored. Three of them have been regularised with effect from 1st April, 1982 and they are Nazir Ahmad, Muhammad Sadiq and Qaim Din. Regarding the remaining two it has been said on behalf of the respondent that they had left service. In spite of it the learned counsel for the appellants has fought the appeal. He has made reference to letter Exh. P‑5 to which the names of the appellants were forwarded for being regularised. The learned counsel says that this l1st was sent in compliance with the order, but the copy of that order has not been brought on the file. The l1st was sent on 19th February, 1975. In the letter is also mentioned that the names of some persons have been forwarded previously, also but they were not regularised. It was further pointed out in the letter that the persons included in the l1st had minimum three years service as work charged employees. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that although the names of the appellants were sent, yet they were ignored and respondents Nos. 3 to 8 were regularised. There is no seniority l1st on the record in the absence of which it is difficult to examine whether the appellants had a prior right to respondents Nos. 3, to e. Since the appellants were claiming to be regulari sed first it was their duty to produce the seniority l1st. Since the original letter in compliance of which letter Exh. P‑5 was sent has not been brought on the record, the presumption would go against the appellants. The pre sumption is that as l1st was invited from Nandipur, Gujranwala, the other l1st may have also been invited from other zones and the employees of other zones may be senior to the appellants, therefore, three of the appellants were regularised late on 1st April, 1982. There is no document on the 'record to show that the appellants had a right to be regularised before res pondents Nos. 3 to 8, therefore, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellants. There is no force in the appeal, which is dismissed.

A. E. 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.