| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1985 SLG 2193 1985 SLD 2193 1985 PLC 850 |
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab
Appeal No. MN-87 of 1984, decided on 21st May, 1984.
MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Appeal No. MN-87 of 1984, decided on 21st May, 1984.
MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN LODHI, APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
DIRECTOR AGRICULTURE MECHANIZATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE, MULTAN
VS
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN
Law:
Section:
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)- --Ss Os. 15 (4) & 1 (b) - Termination - Blacksmith appointed on ad hoc basis against a permanent work continuing for more than three years--Satisfactorily completed probationary period - Services extended from time to time--Terminated on allegations amounting to misconduct-Held : Such device amounts to abuse of process of law-Ad hoc appointment can be made where actual job is not permanent and services are required for a short period-Since worker had become permanent, he could be removed from service after following procedure given in S.O. 15 (4) for misconduct-Order of termination set aside and worker reinstated with back benefits. Muhammad Bilal for Appellant. Date of hearing : 9th May 1984. JUDGMENT The decision dated 29th January, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits. 2. According to the appellant, the respondent was only an ad hoc appointee and thus was legally removed by not extending the period of his service. No doubt vide order dated 21st March, 1979 Exh. R. 12 the respondent was appointed on ad hoc basis for two months and the period of his service was extended vide Exhs. R. 13 to R. 20 from time to time but it appears that it was a device to be saved from the applicability of Standing Order 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Such a device cannot be recognised and approved. This amounts to abuse of the process of law. Ad hoc appointments can be made where actually the job is not permanent and services are required for a short period. If the work for the completion of which appointment is made is in reality temporary, and has not been completed for some reason, the period may be extended but the work that has continued up to 2½ years and still exists cannot be said to be temporary. R. W. 1 said that another person has been appointed in place of the respondent. This fact is admitted in the written statement also. It is thus clear that the services of a blacksmith were still required when…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492