Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: 3,5

Law: Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Section: 1(b), 1(e) & 12

(a)    Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VIof 1968)---
----Sched., S.Os. 1(b), 1(e) & 12---Employees employed for a continuous period exceeding nine months---Dismissal from service without notice through verbal orders---Legality---Standing Order 12 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 ('Ordinance 1968') commands that the services of a workman can neither be terminated, nor a workman can be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken---There is no provision under the Labour Laws or the Service Laws permitting the employer to terminate the services verbally without a written order containing the explicit reasons or cause of termination, even in the case of termination simpliciter--Termination of service by a verbal order is alien to the labour and service laws of the country and also against the principle of good governance---Verbal termination order is also otherwise against the principles of natural justice---Record of the present case reflected that both the respondent employees were performing their duties continuously and the length of their service, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner (employee department) was calling it temporary or on daily wages basis, exceed much more than the provided nine months' period and both were performing their job against a post of permanent nature---In fact, no plea was taken that the services were terminated due to the completion of a task or temporary project, or due to the abolition of such a post or work, or that both positions became surplus because their assigned job no longer existed in the department to carry on in the future---To continue such arrangement for such a long time was nothing but a circumvention of labour laws and misuse of the category of temporary workman defined in the Standing Order 1 of the Ordinance 1968, wherein the employer was only permitted to engage workmen for the work which was of an essentially temporary nature likely to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months; but in the present case it was proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the respondent employees performed their duties much beyond the period of nine months against permanent posts---Hence, respondents were unlawfully terminated under the garb of so-called daily wages engagement, and they were rightly reinstated as regular employees with back benefits by the Labour Court---Petitions were dismissed and leave was refused.

Chairman Agriculture Policy Institute Ministry of National Food Security and Research, Government of Pakistan v. Zulqarnain Ali 2022 SCMR 636; Muhammad Yaqoob v. The Punjab Labour Court Nos. 1 and 5 and others 1990 SCMR 1539; Executive Engineer, Central Civil Division Pak. P.W.D. Quetta v. Abdul Aziz and others PLD 1996 SC 610 and Government of Punjab and others v. Puniab Appellate Tribunal Lahore and others 2002 SCMR 878 ref.

(b)    Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---
----Ss. 3 & 5---Cases involving Government departments, autonomous bodies and private sector/organizations---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Principle--While considering the grounds for condonation of delay, whether rational or irrational, no extraordinary clemency or compassion and/or preferential treatment may be accorded to Govern-ment departments, autonomous bodies or private sector/organizations, rather their cases should be dealt with uniformly and in the same manner as cases of ordinary litigants and citizens.
Regional Police Officer, Dera Ghazi Khan Region v. Riaz Hussain Bukhari 2024 SCMR 1021 ref.

JUDGMENT
MUHAMMAD ALI MAZHAR, J.---These Civil Petitions for leave to appeal are directed against the order dated 23.06.2016, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in W.Ps. Nos. 21263 and 21265 of 2016 whereby the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed.