Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. LHR‑599 of 1985/Pb., decided on 18th December, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 7‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(4) & S.O. 1‑‑Applicability of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 to employees of Road Transport Corporation‑‑Number of employees exceeding 20‑‑Standing Order 1 applicable‑‑ Badli conductor rendering service of more than 283 days in a year‑‑Becomes a permanent worker.
Muhammad lqbal Khokhar for Petitioner.
S.M. Kaleem, Representative for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 14th December, 1985.
The decision, dated 1‑10‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged by both the parties, whereby Rasheed Ahmed (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits. He has in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas the District Manager, Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of re‑instatement of the respondent in service. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The respondent was appointed as Badli conductor vide order copy of which is Exh. R‑2, dated 20‑10‑1983. Vide order copy of which is Exh. P.‑1 his services were terminated on 1‑1‑1985. The respondent deposed that he performed duty for 283 days during the term of his service. This evidence was not rebutted by any oral or documentary evidence by the appellant.
3. It has been argued that by section 7 of the Road Transport Workers Ordinance, Standing Order 1 of. Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 has not been made applicable, so the respondent could not claim to be a permanent Badli under Standing Order 1. The argument is devoid of force. Section 7 includes those establishments, which have been notified by the Government to be governed by Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Where the number of workers employed is 20 or more. Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 vide its section 1(4)(c) applies and no notification is necessary. It is not the case of the appellant that its employees are less than 20. So Standing Order 1 applies and since the respondent had served for more than 283 days in a year before he was terminated, he has been rightly directed by the learned lower Court to the treated as permanent.
4. So far as back benefits are concerned, they respondent said that he remained jobless after the termination of his services. The learned lower Court has not given any reason for disallowing back benefits.
5. As a result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and accepting the appeal of the respondent, he is allowed back benefits.
A.E.
Orders accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer