Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD RAFIQHonorable Justice Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi
1988 P L C 518
1988 P L C 518
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi Appellate Tribunal
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT BOARD
Versus
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ
Appeal No. LHR‑637 of 1985, decided on 9th April. 1986_
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders), Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑S.0.1‑‑"Badli worker"‑‑"Permanent worker"‑‑Badli appointed due to temporary absence of a permanent worker, held, would become permanent if serves continuously for 90 days and for more than 183 days with breaks within one year‑‑Badli conductor in Road Transport Board serving continuously for 192 days, would become permanent.
Khalid Farooq for Appellant.
Muhammad Ashraf Chattha for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 5th April, 1986.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal challenging the decision dated 22‑10‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be treated as permanent conductor and issued permanent card in accordance with law,
2. Admittedly, the respondent was taken in service as a badli conductor vide Ex.P‑2. The case of the appellant is that the respondent was employed as badli conductor on daily wages basis at Rs.21 per day so he could not become permanent. The term 'badli' is defined in Standing Order 1 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. If a permanent employee is absent from duty temporarily another man can be appointed in his absence. If such a badli serves continuously for 90 days and for more than 183 days with breaks within the period of one year, he becomes permanent and is to be absorbed. The respondent, according to Ex.P‑1, served for 192 days from June 1983 to May) 1984. So he had become permanent and thus could not be terminated from service. If, of course, some post of conductor had been abolished and the respondent had been the junior most, his services could have been terminated. RW‑1 stated in cross‑examination that at the time the respondent was employed as badli conductor, there were 30 buses but the number has been reduced to eight, No documentary evidence is on the record to this effect. Apart from it RW‑1 does not say nor there is any evidence that the respondent was the junior most. So the respondent has been rightly directed to be reinstated in service.
3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.
A.E./72/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.