| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1992 SLG 144 1992 SLD 144 = 1992 PLC(CS) 665 |
Appeal No. KAR-192 of 1990, decided on 14th March, 1991.
Ahmed Ali U. Qureshi, Appellate Tribunal
HAMID AHMAD KHAN
VERSUS
PRESIDING OFFICER, FOURTH SINDH LABOUR COURT and another
Law:
Section:
This is an appeal against the order, dated 8-8-1990, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. IV at Karachi, whereby the grievance petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. I have heard Mr. Gohar Iqbal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Hafiz, learned Advocate for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case. The appellant was admittedly employed by the respondents for three months vide letter, dated 30-12-1987. His services were further extended for three months by letter, dated 28-3-1988. His services were terminated by an order, dated 28-6-1988. Aggrieved by this order he served grievance notice upon the respondent and then filed grievance petition in the Labour Court which was resisted by the respondent on the ground that the appointment of the appellant was temporary and his services were terminated on expiry of the period of his appointment by an order in writing and that after accepting dues in full ,and final settlement of his claim, he could not take his grievance to Labour Court. The appellant has examined himself and filed his affidavit-in-evidence in which, he claims that he was engaged on a work of permanent nature but just to circumvent the labour laws and deprive workers of permanent benefits the management of the respondent never provided permanent status to the workers including the appellant under the garb of temporary appointment. In the cross-examination, however, he has admitted that he was appointed temporarily. He has denied in his cross-examination that the job on which he was employed was temporary. He had also admitted that during his employment he was issued temporary Identity Card. It may be pointed out that respondent did not examine any witness in rebuttal. The determining factor for the purpose of status of the workers is the nature of job, on which he was employed. If he was employed on a job of permanent nature, which is likely to last for more than 9 months, then he would be considered to have been appointed as a permanent worker, after he successfully completed three months' period of probation. However, if he was…