Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 173 of 1975, decided rn 48th November 1975.

__ S. 25-A (6)-Termination of service-Application to Court by workman-Observance of procedure in S. 25 (13 (2)-Not essential Ordinance a law beneficial for workman-Interpretation more beneficial to workman need be adopted.

Mehdi for Appellant.

Jamal Ahmad Sharifi for Respondent.

This order shall dispose of the aforesaid appeal filed by the same appellant against two of its female employees, as a common question of law is involved in both the cases. Mst. Shaista Bano and Mst. Bushra two employees (respondents) of Messrs Wyeth Laboratories (Pakistan) Ltd., were terminated on 2-4-75 on the ground that their performance during the period of probation was not satisfactory.

2. Both the respondents filed applications under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Junior Labour Court No. 1. Lahore, seeking their respective re-instatement and challenging their orders of termination. Before filing applications under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the respondents admittedly did not serve any grievance notices on the employer i.e, appellant., This objection was taken by the appellant before the learned lower Court that since the grievance procedure prescribed in subsections (1) and (2) of section 25 .A of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969, has not been observed by the respondents ,their applications under section 25-A were not legally competent.

3. The learned lower Court after hearing the parties and after tasking into considerations of subsection (6) of section 25-A ibid concluded that in cases of termination observance of procedure prescribed in subsection (1) and (2) of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance was not required, in view of the provisions of subsection (6) of the section 25-A of the industrial Relations Ordinance. Consequently by one order dated 12-7-75 whereby both the cases were disposed of by learned Court below, the preliminary objections raised the appellants were overruled.

4. The present appeals are directed against the aforesaid order dated 12-7-75. For the disposal of point in issue reference needs to be made to the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which are reproduced below in extenso:-

"(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) to (4) any worker aggrieved by the termination of his employment as a result of retrenchment, dismissal discharge, lay off, lack-out or otherwise not earlier than two months preceding the commencement of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, may, within a period of two months from the commencement of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973 or the termination of the employment whichever is later, either himself or through his Shop Steward or Trade Union, take the matter correctly to a Junior Labour Court having jurisdiction in the area in which the establishment is situated."

5. The reference to the aforesaid provisions would show what subsec tion (6) of section 25-A Mid is applicable to the case of termination of employ ment of a workman as a result of retrenchment, dismissal, discharge, lay off lock-out or otherwise. This subsection has clearly provided that the procedure contained in this subsection would apply to a worker aggrieved by termination notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) to (4) of section 25-A NO. It is also noteworthy that subsection (6) cover two types of cases, One is those who were terminated not earlier than two months preceding the commencement of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972. Persons falling within this category may apply to a Junior Labour Court within a period of two months from the commencement of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973. The other category of the cases covered by subsection (6) is the cases of termination which occur later and for later terminations the application 25-A is to be made within a period of two month of the termination of employment. The fact however remains that for both the eventualities the observance of grievance procedure contained in sub sections (1) and (2) is not necessary. It is to be borne in mind that the Industrial Relation9 Ordinance, 1969 is a beneficial law passed in favour o workmen. While interpreting it the interpretation which is more favourable to workmen need to hr adopted.

6. In the light of what has been said above we conclude that the learned lower Court has been perfectly justified in distinguishing the case law cited by the appellant from the Sind-Baluchistan Province and those the conclusion arrived at by learned lower Court is upheld.

7. In this view of the matter we find no merit in those appeals which are accordingly dismissed while the impugned orders are upheld. The records of the lower Court be remitted back immediately to the said Court for proceeding further with the case to decide the same on merit. The parties are directed to appear Wore the learned lower Court for further proceedings on 5-12-1975

Find a Lawyer Near You

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