Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. FD‑274 of 1984, decided on 30th October, 1984.

‑‑‑R.XVII‑1‑‑Retirement and pension benefits‑‑Sweepers of Town Committee‑‑Not guaranteed any pension or retirement benefits‑‑Grievance petition before Labour Court claiming pension and retirement after service of 25 years‑‑Petition in absence of right guaranteed by law, award or settlement‑‑Not maintainable‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, rightly non‑suited petitioners‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3).

Mahboob Alam for Appellants.

Sajjad Anwar Bhatti for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 27th October, 1984.

The decision, dated 21‑4‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.5, Faisalabad has been challenged in this appeal whereby the grievance petition of the appellants for being treated as permanent employees and being given benefits of retirement rules was dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants has made reference to payment register of pay Exh. P.15. and copy of settlement Exh.P.6. In Exh.P.15 monthly salary of both the appellants is mentioned as Rs.75. It is argued on strength of Exh.P.15 that the appellants are not daily wages. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has referred to muster roll Exh. R.l. In this document both the appellants are shown to be absent for three days in the month of May, 1973.According to pay register Exh.R.2, Rs.14.81 were deducted from the pay of both the appellants. It is argued that since the appellants are not permanent and regular employees, they are not paid the pay for the days on which they remained absent. So far as Exh.R‑1 is concerned interpolation was made in it by changing the letter 'P' meant for 'present' into 'A' meant for absent. No other evidence has been pointed out that may show that the pay of holidays or leave days was not paid. Since the pay is fixed for whole months, it means that the pay is allowed for Fridays and other declared holidays.

3. Needless to say that under section 25‑A only right guaranteed by any settlement, award of law can be claimed. In the grievance petition it is said that the appellants are entitled to be retired by operation of law. It has not, however, been shown which law guarantees A right of retirement with retirement benefits. No rule of the respondent has been pleaded that may have declared the sweepers as permanent employees with right of retirement. Rather rule XVII‑1 of Municipal Rules, 1930 as amended upto 1938 does not recognize the sweepers as permanent employees. It reads as under:‑

"Service books shall be maintained for all permanent employees of the committee other than Malis, Beldars, pound‑keepers, herdsmen, cartmen, Khansamas, sweepers and Bhishtis; the books shall be obtained at the cost of the employees from the treasury and shall be maintained in accordance with rules 12.2 to 12.8 of the rules contained in Volume II of the Punjab Financial Handbook No. 2."

According to Standing Order 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 if the work, is likely to last for more than nine months or is of permanent nature, the post will be permanent. The same order says that if the employee completes three months service satisfactorily on the said job, he becomes permanent but this is not the case of the appellants that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 guarantees right of permanency. If benefits of this law had been sought, the respondent may have a chance to show that it is not applicable. Apart from it if Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is applied, then the right to become permanent accrued on completion of three months probation but according to the appellants, they have 25 years service. So, the petitions are time‑barred if they invoke the provisions of Standing Order 1 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Copy of settlement Exh.P.6 has also been placed but the same too is not helpful because its clause (1) says that increments would continue according to rules. It has not been shown that under any rule the appellants are being allowed increments. Rather according to Exh.P.15, the pay is fixed i.e. Rs.75. No rate of scale or rate of increment is given. If, even for the sake of arguments, it is said that Exh.P.6, guarantees any right to the appellants, the petitions are time‑barred because the settlement is, dated 30‑3‑1982, whereas the grievance notice is, dated 25‑10‑1982 and the petitions were brought on 30‑12‑1982.

4. Since the appellants failed to show that they have any right guaranteed by any law, settlement or award, they were rightly non‑suited by the learned lower Court. As a result the appeal fail and 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.