Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: SUPERINTENDENT, POST OFFICE, D.G. KHAN VS Respondent: AZIZ MUHAMMADHonorable Justice Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan LodhiMuhammad Zaman Qureshi
1993 P L C 921
1993 P L C 921
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
SUPERINTENDENT, POST OFFICE, D.G. KHAN and another
Versus
AZIZ MUHAMMAD
Appeal No.DGK‑554 of 1986, decided on 12th November, 1986.
Industrial dispute‑
‑‑‑‑ Leave vacancy can never be regarded as permanent‑‑‑Incumbent of leave vacancy cannot attain permanent status‑‑‑Post Offices Department case‑‑‑Mail Peon appointed against leave vacancy‑‑‑Services terminated for want of vacancy‑‑‑Termination order challenged on plea of being a permanent employee‑‑‑Claim, held, was rightly rejected‑‑‑Person concerned, however qualified examination meant for mail peons‑‑‑Department directed to keep him on waiting list for absorption according to rules subject to vacancy.
Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Appellants.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing: 2nd November, 1986.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal preferred against the decision dated 16‑7‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. The respondent was employed as a mail peon. His services were terminated on 16‑11‑1984. He challenged the order contending that he was a permanent employee; so without being charge‑sheeted or holding an inquiry he could not be removed from service. Relying upon the statement of RW‑1 the learned lower Court has held that the respondent was a permanent employee. R.W. 1 stated only this much in favour of the respondent that the latter had remained in service for 2 and a half or three months. He did not say that the post was permanent. He rather stated that as there was no vacancy, so the services of the respondent were terminated. The learned lower Court without the presence of any evidence held that against permanent post the respondent was employed. The respondent produced only two appointment orders namely Exhs. P‑1 and P‑3. Each time he was appointed for one month in a leave vacancy. Total period is two months. A leave vacancy can never be regarded as permanent vacancy. However, since admittedly the respondent had qualified the examination meant for mail peons, he should have been kept on the waiting list and absorbed if and when any permanent vacancy had occurred.
3. It is doubtful if Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies to Post Offices, which are being run by the Central Government. No rules are on the file, so it cannot be definitely said if Standing Orders Ordinance applies or does not apply.
4. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the appellants are directed to absorb the respondent in service according to Rules, if there is a vacancy.
A.E./226/Lb.P Appeal accepted.