Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 4166 = 2026 SLD 4166 = 2026 PLC 143
Pakistan Labour Court
Appeal No.12A(137) of 2022, decided on 20th September, 2023.
Presented By: Abdul Rasool Memon, Chairman Abdul Qayyum Khan and Muhammad Sirajul Islam Khan, Members
  Ch. Sagheer Ahmed for Appellant.        M. Akhtar Anjum for
Respondents .

PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION LIMITED

VERSUS

HUMAYYUN SHAHZAD and others

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

Section: 1(b), 1(g)

[National Industrial Relations Commission]  Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968) SOs. 1(b) & 1(g)---Employee/worker performing duty for more than nine months---Regularization/permanency in employment---Entitlement---Company assailed order passed by Single Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) whereby the respondents were held regularized from the date of their initial appointment---Validity---The status of the respondents being workmen had not been disputed---The respondents were continuously performing their duties in the Appellant/ Company from different dates in the years 1992 to 1996 and they filed grievance petition in the year 2015 after serving grievance notices upon the employer---As their cause of action was recurring because they were allegedly continuously deprived from their right of regularization/permanency of service, thus their claim of regularization could not be termed as time barred---Evidently, the services of the respondents were being utilized for a span of years on permanent basis---Undisputedly, the respondents had been performing their duties in the Appellant /Company continuously for decades against the posts of permanent natures---The permanent workman , as defined in Standing Orders 1(b), should be engaged in work of a permanent nature likely to continue for last more than nine months---There was practically no dispute between the parties regarding the services of the respondents, being rendered by them, however, the claim of the Appellant/Company was that the services of the respondents cannot be considered as permanent from the date of initial appointment as claimed by the respondents---Admittedly, the respondents were performing their duties against the work of permanent nature which continued for indefinite period and their period of employment was for a much longer period than the one which entitled them to be classified as permanent workmen under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 , altogether different from the classification of contract workers as referred in clause 'g' of the Standing Order No.1---The…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register