Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 1692 2026 SLD 1692 = 2026 PLC 65 = 2026 PLD 85
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No.2726 of 2023, heard on 9th April, 2025.
Presented By: Malik Javid Iqbal Wains, J
Khawaja Muhammad Arif for Petitioners. Raja Mohsin Abbas for
Respondents Nos.3 and 4. Date of hearing: 9th April, 2025.

DILBAR MASIH

VERSUS

CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE and 3 others

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

Section: 2(i) , Sched. Paras1(b) , 1(e), 12(2), 12(3)

  Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VIof 1968)--- ----S.O. 2(i) & Sched. Paras.1(b) & 1(e)---Notification No. SO(ERB)544/2019/WC-DW-Policy dated 29.01.2021 issued by the Government of Punjab, Services and General Administration Department (Regulations / O&M Wing)--Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 10A & 25---Permanent employee / workman--Entitlement---Petitioners, undisputedly, were working on daily wages basis with the respondents for several years and, admittedly, had been receiving monthly salaries as per the settled terms and conditions outlined in their appointment letters--During the service of petitioners, no adverse remarks or disciplinary action were reported against them---The nature of their duties was manual, thus, placing them squarely within the protection of labour laws---If the nature of work for which a person is employed is of a permanent nature, then he may become permanent upon the expiry of the period of nine months mentioned in terms of clause (b) of paragraph 1 of the Schedule to Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 ( the Ordinance ), provided that he is covered by the definition of the term "worker" given in S. 2(i) thereof ; but if the work is not of permanent nature and is not likely to last for more than nine months, then he is not covered by the above provision---In the present case, the petitioners had been continuously serving against various posts for several years, albeit with artificial breaks---The duration of their employment far exceeded the nine-months threshold, clearly indicating that their work was of a permanent nature---Pertinently , the respondents did not claim that the petitioners were terminated upon completion of a task, project, or due to the abolition of posts---Pertinently, the Government of Punjab, Services and General Administration Department (Regulations/O&M Wing), issued a Notification No. SO(ERB)5- 44/2019/WC-DW-Policy dated 29.01.2021, clarifying the status of work-charged employees, daily wagers, and contingent paid staff; according to the which (notification) daily wagers who have completed nine months…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register