Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. QSA‑49 of 1984, decided on 12th March, 1984.
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3) read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 1 (b)‑ Permanent workman‑ Daily Wager employed for work in morning and freed after working hours‑No order required to appoint or terminate such employee‑Cannot claim to be a permanent workman for mere fact that post lasted for more than nine months‑Such person cannot be said to have been employed but is only put to work if there is work for him‑Has no guaranteed right to be enforced under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition for reinstatement upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
M. A. Hamid Awan for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 5th March, 1984.
The appeal captioned above emerges from the decision dated 11th January, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed on the ground that he being a daily wager had no guaranteed right.
2. It has been argued that the appellant was employed in 1981 and has been regularly and continuously serving the respondent till 16th June, 1983 when his services were terminated as no longer required. Learned counsel for the appellant admitted that the appellant was never paid wages for Fridays and other holidays. The learned lower Court has with reference to the evidence observed that the appellant was paid wages according to the work done by him in a particular week, and that he was not enjoying medical aid and the facility of purchasing articles from fair price shop, which facilities are enjoyed by permanent workers. Exh. R. A. is the application of the appellant for being made permanent. This further shows that he was not a regular and permanent employee. Such a worker is not on the roll of regular employees. Whenever there is work for him, he is employed is the morning and is free after working hours and no order is required to appoint him and to terminate him. Such employee has no right of service. Even if such a worker works continuously, he does not become permanent, because the first condition is that the work should be of permanent nature. The mere fact that a post has lasted for more than nine months is not sufficient if the work is not of permanent nature. Such a person cannot be said to have been employed but is only put to work ii there is work for him. Such a person has no guaranteed right under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. For such a worker the reasons no longer required or' want of work, are sufficient.
3. Asa result, the appeal is dismissed in limine.
A. E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer