Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑189 of 1985, decided on 15th April, 1985.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑

‑‑‑S. 1(4)(c) a S.O. 1‑‑Provisions of Ordinance made applicable under Government Notification to Punjab Urban Transport Corporation‑‑Badli Conductor having successfully completed period of three months or 183 days during period of 12 successive months, held,‑ became a permanent workmen‑‑Plea that S.O. 1 was not included in S. 7 of Road Transport Workers Ordinance, 1961, in circumstances, repelled.

Shafiq‑ul‑Islam for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 27th April, 1985.

The decision, dated 2‑2‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged whereby the appellant was directed to treat the respondent as a permanent bus Conductor and to issue permanent card to him.

2. The respondent was employed as Badli Conductor vide order Exh. P. 1 dated 24‑6‑1982.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that it stands proved by the evidence of R.W. 1 that the respondent was made to work as Conductor when some permanent Conductors were absent. Exh. P. 1 is the order of appointment but it does not suggest that the respondent was appointed in place of any permanent Conductor who may be absent. The order shows that the name of the respondent was included in the list of Badli Conductors and it was ‑ordered that when the respondent would be engaged he would be paid Rs.21 for one shift a day. The sentence wherein it was mentioned that he would be engaged when a permanent Conductor was absent was scored of R.W. 1, therefore, wrongly stated that the respondent had to work as Conductor when some permanent Conductor was on leave. Vide statement of the respondent it stood proved that he worked continuously for a period of 246 days. This evidence was not rebutted. According to Order I of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 a Badli Conductor becomes permanent who has successfully completed period of three months or 183 days during the period of twelve successive months. Thus, the respondent had become permanent. There is no force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that Order 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, has not been included in section 7 of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance. This is true that in the said section 7, Order 1 is not mentioned but this section relates to those establishments that are not otherwise covered by the Standing Orders Ordinance and Government has included them by issuing notification under section) (1) (4)(c). Section 7 for ready reference reproduced as under:

"7. W.P. Ordinance No. VI of 1968 to apply to the road transport service.‑‑

The provisions of Standing Orders IOB, lOC, 12 other than those contained in clause (2) thereof, 13, 14 other than the proviso thereto, and 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (W.P. Ordinance No. VI of 1968), as in force for the time being, shall apply to every road transport service as if such road transport service were an industrial establishment to which the aforesaid Ordinance had been applied by a notification under clause (c) of subsection (4) of section 1 thereof, and as if a worker was a workman within the meaning of that Ordinance;

Provided that‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑,

The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly allowed the grievance petition of the respondent.

4. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.

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.