Find a Lawyer

Petition No. 54 of 1969, decided on 19th January 1970.

, S. 67, proviso 2(b) and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 18‑Jurisdic tion of Industrial Court for hearing petition under S. O 8,West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑Independent of any notification in terms of S. 11 of West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 Labour Court being successor of Industrial Court vide proviso 2(b), S.67, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, held, competent to hear application under S. O. 18, West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

Irshad Ahmad for Petitioner.

Ch. Altaf Hussain for Respondent.

This is a petition under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 filed by Riaz Ahmad, petitioner against Mr. Tahir Jahangir, Managing Director, Punjab Vege table Ghee and General Mils Limited, Lahore, respondent. The facts of the case briefly stated are that the petitioner was appointed Electrician in the respondent Mills on 12.7‑1963,

at the rate of Rs. 140 P. M. On 29‑4‑1968 the petitioner along with other employees was laid off with an assurance that he would be called back to duty latter on and that he would be entitled to all the benefits admissible to him under the law. The petitioner was called back to duty at the end of May 1968 but on 30‑4‑1969, the petitioner surprisedly received a fresh appointment letter reducing him to the status of a probationer, removable from service without any notice. His appointment letter thus amounted to the termination of his service as an Electrician. The petitioner on 30‑5‑1969, sent a letter to the respondent, bringing leis grievance to his notice but no reply was received: Hence the present petition.

The learned Representative of the respondent raised a preliminary objection that in view of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 the present petition was not competent.

It was contended that under section 35 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, it was not mentioned that a Court constituted under the said Ordinance could hear a petition filed under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial‑Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, whereas under section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Ordi nance, 1968, it was mentioned that a Court appointed under that Ordinance could hear petitions understanding Order 18. At this stage it will be convenient to reproduce both the aforementioned sections. Section 35 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, reads as follows:

"Labour Court.‑(1) The Provincial Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, establish as many Labour Courts as it considers necessary, and where it establishes more than one Labour Court, shall specify in the notification the territorial limits within which each one of them shall exercise jurisdiction under this Ordinance.

(2) A Labour Court shall consist of a Chairman and two members to advise the Chairman, one of the members to represent the employers and other to represent the workmen, all being appointed by the Provincial Government.

(3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as Chairman unless he has been or is, or is quali fied to be a Judge or Additional Judge of a High Court or is a District Judge, or an Additional District Judge.

(4) The members shall be appointed in resolution with the employers and workmen in such manner and on such terms and conditions as may be prescribed.

(5) Labour Court shall‑‑

(a) adjudicate and determine au industrial dispute which has been referred to it under section 32 or section 33 or relating to a matter in respect of which an application is made to it under section 34.

(b) enquire, and adjudicate any matter relating to I the implementation or violation of a settlement which is j referred to it by the Provincial Government ;

(c) try offences under this Ordinance ; and

(d) exercise and perform such other powers and functions as are or may be conferred upon or assigned to it < by or under this Ordinance." Section ‑11 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, reads as follows

(1) The Court shall‑

(a) adjudicate and determine any industrial dispute in respect of which any application has been made to it under sub section (8) of section 6 ;

(b) enquire into and adjudicate any matter referred to it by Government for enquiry and adjudication ; , .

(e) try offences under sections 33 and 35 ; and

(d) exercise and perform such other powers and functions under clause (a) of subsection (1), determining in a summary way the objections raised by any party to the dispute:

Provided that the party against whom an application has been made under subsection (8) of section shall raise at the first hearing, all objections by his pleadings which show the application to be not maintainable on all such grounds of defence as, if not raised, would be likely to take the opposite‑party by surprise or would raise new issues of facts or law;

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (VIII of 1923), the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and the payment of Wages Act, 1936 (IV of 1936), Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint the Court to be, or confer or impose upon it any powers or functions of, any authority under any of the said Acts or Ordinance, and upon such notification, the Court shall be deemed to perform the functions of such Authority under the, relevant Act or Ordinance."

From the perusal of section 11 of the Ordinance, 1969, it was incumbent upon the Government to issue notification in order to confer powers on the Industrial Court to hear petitions under Standing Order 18 but in spite of it the Industrial Court continued to hear petitions under Standing Order 18, because West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, independently conferred the jurisdiction on the Industrial Court to hear petitions under Standing Order 18 as is contemplated under the said Order, which reads as follows :‑

"Any individual workman who has a grievance in respect of any matter under this Ordinance and intends to seek redress thereof, shall observe the following procedure

(a) the workman concerned shall bring his grievance to the notice of his employer, in writing, within fifteen has of the occurrence of the cause of such grievance, and the employer shall, within thirty days of such grievance being brought to his notice, inquire into the matter, giving the workman concerned an opportunity of being heard, and communicate his decision, in writing to the said workman ;

(b) if the employer fails to give a decision within the period specified in clause (a), or if the workman is dissatisfied with such decision, the workman may mark; a complaint to the Industrial Court having jurisdiction, within thirty days from the date of the decision, or where the employer fails to give a decision, within sixty days of the workman bringing the grievance to the notice of the employer, unless the grievance has already been raised , or has otherwise been taken cognisance of as an industrial dispute under the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968

Provided that no complaint shall lie against an order of termination of employment of ' a workman unless the workman concerned is an officer of a registered Trade Union and his employment is alleged to have been termi nated for his Trade Union activities or unless the workman concerned, whether an officer of a registered Trade Union or not has been deprived of the benefits accruing to him under this Ordinance ;

(c)

(d)

For this very reason no reference of West Pakistan Industrial land Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was made .in clause 6 of section 35 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned counsel for the respondent further contended that under Standing Order 18, jurisdiction has only been conferred on the Industrial Court and not on the Labour Court, constituted under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and therefore this Court has no jurisdiction to hear this petition. This contention has no force because the constitution of the, Industrial Court, constituted under West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, is ‑the same as the Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and as such labour Court is the successor Court to the Industrial court as is laid down in proviso 2 (b) of section 67 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

In view of the above we overrule the preliminary objection and proceed to hear this petition on merits.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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