Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR-95 of 1968 (F. A. O. 115 of 1968), heard on 28th April 1969.

Ss.11& 12-Sections do not give jurisdiction to Industrial Court to set aside order of dismissal.

(b) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968),

--S. O. 18, proviso Dismissal of worker (not an office-bearer of Union) on grounds of misconduct - S. O. 18, held, not applicable for making application for re-instatement.

---S. 16 read with Ss. 11 & 12 and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 19681, S. O. 18 - Appeal-Order on application under. Ss. 11 & 12, West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance,' 1968 or on application under S. O. 18, West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968-Not appealable to Tribunal.

An order on an application under sections 11 and 12 of West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 anon an application under Standing Order 18, cannot be said to be an order within the meaning of section 16 of the Ordinance, so as to give right of the appeal to the Tribunal.

Appellant in person.

Ghazanfar Siddiqi for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 28th April 1968.

This is an appeal against on order of the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court (Northern Zone), Lahore, dated 27th June 1968. The impugned order was passed on an application under sections 11 and 12, of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), and Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders).. The learned Chairman came to the conclusion that the application was not maintainable under sections 11 and 12, of the Ordinance and that Standing Order 18, also could not apply in the case of the appellant, as he was not an office-bearer of the Union. The facts briefly put are these.

2. The appellant was employed in the Press of the Progres sive Papers Limited, Lahore. He was in the service of the press for the last 8 years. His services were terminated from 16th March 1968, on the ground of misconduct. The appellant challenged his dismissal on the ground that he was not allowed an opportunity to defend himself. A preliminary objection was taken by the respondents that the application of the applicant (now appellant), was not maintainable. The objection found favour with the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court.

3. The appellant has appeared in person. I agree with the learned Chairman of the Industrial Court that the provisions of sections 11 and 12 of the Ordinance could not give jurisdiction to the Court to set aside the order of dismissal. Section 11 of, the Ordinance narrates function of the Court, while section 12, of the Ordinance prescribes the procedure and powers of the 4 Court. These two sections do not confer airy power on the Court to order his re‑instatement:

4. Standing Order 18, also would have no application, as,B the appellant, admittedly, is not an office‑bearer of the Union.

5. An order on an application under sections 11 and 12 of, the Ordinance, or on an application under Standing Order 18 cannot be said to be an order within the meaning of section 16 of the Ordinance, so as to give right of appeal to the Tribunal would hold that the appeal is not maintainable. The appeal is, accordingly dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.