Last Updated on October 31, 2021 by ShumailaKamal
The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No.II, Multan has given its decision on 23rd December 2013 in connection with the Regularization of Computer Operators in Irrigation Department. The detail of this decision is as under:
Some Facts of the Judgment
All the appeals are being decided by common judgment as common question of law and facts arc involved in all these appeals. The appellants have filed above titled appeals before this Tribunal against judgment dated 06-07-2013 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur whereby Learned Presiding Officer dismissed the grievances petitions of the appellants.
The brief facts of the instant appeals are that appellants were appointed as computer operators against vacant and permanent posts and they performed their duties to the entire satisfaction of the respondent-department. The appellants have been working without any break or gap. Salary of the appellants was paid without any weekly deduction or for other gazetted holidays. Each appellant have service record of more than 9 months. The respondent department where the respondents were appointed is permanent institution. So, the appellants had attained the status of permanent worker/workman. The appellants requested several times to Authority for regularization of their service but all in vain. They had not been regularized by the Authority malafidely despite repeated demands.
After grievance notice upon respondent-department, the appellants filed grievance petitions before Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur. It was alleged in the grievance petitions that they are working for the last several years as computer operators against vacant and permanent posts; appellants worked satisfactorily and honestly and their period of service was extended from time to time. The appellants possess unblemished career of service and they have attained the status of permanent workmen. It was alleged in the grievance petitions that appellants requested several time to competent authority of respondent-department for regularization of service of the appellants but all in vain, the appellants prayed for regularization of their service and claimed all the benefits of regular employee. The respondent-department filed written statement and raised preliminary objections that their recruitment was on daily wages basis and purely on temporary basis. On facts, in the written statement all the facts of grievance petition were denied.
Learned Labour Court recorded the evidence of both the parties. All the respondents/petitioners appeared as Pw-l in their respective grievance petition and supported his version as set out in the grievance petition. Respondents/petitioners have brought on the record documents Ex. P.I to Ex. P.14. On behalf of respondent-department Rw-l Mian Muhammad Masood Executive Engineer, Ahmedpur (East) appeared and admitted that respondents/ petitioners have been serving as Computer Operators with the respondent-department from different dates and these dates pertain to different years definitely beyond a period of nine months. He further admitted that respondents/ petitioners are regularly receiving salary and different letters were issued by the respondent.
Concluding Para of the Judgment dated 06.07.2013
The concluding Para of the judgment dated 06.07.2013 is reproduced below:-
“The unambiguous factual and legal position which emerges out to float on the surface of record before this Court is that the petitioners have not attained the status of permanent employees and cannot be declared so, as prayed by them, therefore all these grievance petitions are dismissed”.
Summary of the Decision
In view of the above discussion, all the above titled appeals filed by appellants are hereby allowed and judgment dated 06.07.2013 passed by Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur is hereby set aside. The respondent-department is directed to reinstate: the appellants in service as Computer Operators considering them regular/permanent workmen with immediate effect. No order as to costs.
Full detail of the decision is available at the copy of the decision. This post has been delivered by Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Gojjer.