Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. Through D.G.M. And Incharge Law VS Respondent: Syed MAZHAR HUSSAIN And 12 Others
Court Name: Labour Appellate Tribunal Judge(s): Mushtaq Ali Kazi Title:PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION (PVT.) LTD. Through D.G.M. And
Incharge Law vs Syed MAZHAR HUSSAIN And 12 Others Case No.: Appeals Nos. 158 to 170 of 1996 Date of Judgment:1996-05-16 Reported As: 1997 PLC 378 Result: Appeals dismissed Judgment DECISION These 13 respondents were employed as Tin Smiths in the appellant Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation. They had asked the management for being made permanent, because they had been employed for more than 7 -- years since 1982, as skilled workers in a job of permanent nature and they had completed their three months' period of probation satisfactorily and without complaint. After their demand was dismissed they approached the Labour Court as the matter related to the terms and conditions of their service. 2. The Steel Mills took the defence that they were temporary workers as they were not allowed to complete 90 days' period continuously but were terminated after 89 days each the so as to defeat their claim of being made permanent. That their claim was also the-barred because this practice had continued from the the of their employment. 3. The learned Labour Court however came to the conclusion that it had been admitted in evidence that they had satisfactorily completed the probationary period of three months and the work being of permanent nature they were to be classified as permanent workers under section 2(g) of Standing Orders Ordinance. The Labour Court accordingly held that the applicants had attained the status of permanent workers. 4. Any practice of evading and defeating the impact of law and trying to get out of the requirements of law, cannot be appreciated or considered as a reason to deprive a worker of the benefit, that he is otherwise entitled to receive. This practice of terminating the services of temporary workman each the after 89 days cannot be approved. The management has to at in a manner which is transparent and above board.
---
## Page 2
5. I can accordingly find no reason for interference with the order of the Labour Court. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed in limine.