Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 295 of 1975, decided on 23rd August 1975.

---S. 25-A(4) & (5)-Termination of service Grievance against Not a fanciful grievance Teacher of school run by Employees of establishment declared as Essential Service-Not an employee of an Essential service-Can seek remedy under S. 25-A before Labour Court against termination of service - Service termination without assigning any reason-Post not abolished-Termination, in circum stances, set aside.

Raja Abdul Rashid for Appellant.

Naeem Bukhari for Respondent.

The above-cited appeal was decided ex parte by me vide order-dated 15-7-75. Learned counsel for the respondent filed an application under Order IX, rule 9, C. P. C. to get this ex parte order set aside. Notice was issued to the appellant. Her counsel has appeared today and has stated that he has no objection if this ex parte order be set aside and appeal is heard on merits. So I have accepted that application and heard the appeal on merits.

2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that appellant was one of the Instructors of Attock Industrial School, Morgah Refinery. Her services were terminated by verbal order dated 1-1-74. She filed a petition before the Junior Labour Court on 5-2-74. Written statement by the respondent was filed in that petition on 8-2-74. Petition was adjourned to 23-2-74 when the counsel of the respondent made a statement that Managing Committee of the School is ready to re-instate her. So petition was accepted accordingly. Services of the appellant were again terminated on 6-3-74 by a written order. Aggrieved by this termination she again filed a petition on 7-5-74. Written reply to this petition was filed on 15-5-74. Petition was dismissed on 25-5-74.

3. Learned counsel of the appellant has urged that under subsection (6) of section 25-A Junior Labour Court has to see the grievance of the petitioner other than what is guaranteed to the petitioner by law, settlement or any award. By addition of subsection (7) of section 25-A of the 1. R. O., 1969 subsections (4) and (5) of section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1959 have been made applicable in cases of termination etc. According to subsection (4) and (5) of section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969, Junior, Labour Court has to pass, keeping in view all the relevant facts of the case a just and proper order. Grievance of termination in the instant case is not a guaranteed right under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 or by any other law. Attock Industrial School is an undertaking run by the Managing Committee of the Attock Industrial School Refinery Employees as a charitable institution to train and instruct the students. So it is an under taking as is defined by the definition of Industry. Appellant's services were terminated verbally on 1-1-74, again she was re-instated on 23-2-74, again her services were terminated on 6-3-74 without assigning any reason for personal whims of the Managing Committee. This is not the case of the respondent that there is no vacancy. This is also not the case of the respondent that appellant committed any misconduct. So these orders of termination cannot be termed as just and proper and appellant has not come to the Labour Court for any fanciful grievance.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has urged in the first place that if it is held as was held, by me in my order dated 15-7-75 that this school is considered to be one of the establishments at Morgah, then employees of Morgah Refinery are under the grip of Essential Service Act, Labour laws are not applicable and so Labour Court has no jurisdiction. If it is considered to be a separate entity then no legal right guaranteed to the appellant has been violated. Employees of the Attock Industrial School are governed by the ordinary civil law and this relationship of master and servant exists between the parties. Appellant could only sue the respondent for damages and she has no remedy for her re-instatement. It is the sweet- will of the Managing Committee/Management. She could remain there only during the pleasure of the Managing Committee.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has produced the Notification declaring the respondent Refinery as Essential Service. Only the employees of the Refinery are cohered by it. Appellant is the employee of the employee of the Refinery giving training and instructions to the students and this undertaking has nothing to do with the Refinery itself. She has a genuine grievance, though not guaranteed by any law. To dismiss her without any rhyme and reason is unwarranted. This cannot be termed as a fancible grievance. It is a genuine grievance.

6. In that view of the matter, I accept the appeal and set aside the order of the trial Court.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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