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. MN‑342 of 1984, decided on 11th November, 1984.
‑‑Railway employees (Block Cleaners)‑Confirmation‑Made always in accordance with seniority‑No seniority list available on record ‑Order of Labour Court that petitioners stood confirmed having been regularized after 3 years service modified by Appellate Tribunal directing Railway administration to confirm petitioners if no Senior was waiting confirmation‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3).
Ch. Ali Muhammad for Appellant.
Respondents in person.
Date of hearing: 6th November, 1984.
The titled appeal calls in question the decision dated 5th May, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was accepted.
2. The respondents were recruited as block cleaners against temporary labour applied (TLA) in 1973. They were got medically examined and the doctor found them not fit for B‑1 vide report dated 7th November, 1982. Before notice of termination could be issued to them, they served grievance notice asking the appellant to confirm them as they had worked for eight years. On the expiry of 15 days they brought the grievance petition on 20th December, 1982. Termination order was passed on 22nd December, 1982. The learned lower Court has held that no rule was shown to the effect that vision test for the block cleaners was necessary. Copy of an extract from Appendix‑VIII Personnel Manual Vol‑I (Chapters 1 and 2) is on the file but it shows that vision test is necessary for Line Labour of signal branch. Neither in the written statement nor during arguments reference has been made to any rule, according to which, vision test of block cleaners may be necessary. In the absence of any rule it is difficult to hold that the respondents were rightly disqualified and terminat ed from service. R. W. I has deposed that in 1979 the posts held by the respondents became semi permanent. No document is on the record, that could show that the posts were made semi‑permanent. Even no rule has been cited or shown to the effect that to the rules the term semi permanent is known. It, therefore, cannot be assumed that semi‑permanent posts exist. The posts are either temporary or permanent but the term 'semi‑permanent' in the absence of any rule cannot be said to have ever come into existence.
3. It appears that since the appellant is not inclined, for reasons best known to it, to regularise and confirm the respondents, so they have with out any rule invented the term semi permanent', whereas the posts are permanent. If they had not been permanent, R. W.1. would not have characterised them as semi‑permanent. Since the posts are permanent, the respondents stood regularised after three years.
4. However, so far as the question of confirmation of the respondents) is concerned, the finding of the learned lower Court is not sustain able. Confirmation is always made in accordance with seniority. There is no material on the record that there is no unconfirmed person senior to the) respondents. First of all, seniors are to be confirmed.
5. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellant is directed to confirm the respondents, if no person senior to them is waiting for confirmation.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer