Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. 932 of 1974, decided on 50 October 1976.

----S. 25-A-Grievance procedure-Workers aggrieved by termination of their employment as a result of retrenchment, dismissal, discharge, lay off etc. not later than two months preceding commencement of Amendment Ordinance of 1972-Subsection (6) of S. 25-A, held, dispenses with procedure prescribed under subsections (l) to (4) in regard to such workers-Concession contained in S. 25-A(6) limited in nature.

Karachi Shipyards & Engineering Works Ltd.,

Karachi v. Second Sind Labour Court P L D 1975 Kar. 719 rel.

Karachi Development Authority v. Presiding Officer II, Sind Labour Court, Karachi and others P L D 1975 Kar. 716 ref.

Khalil Kazilbash for Petitioner.

Hameed M. Siddiqui for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 20th September 1976.

The circumstances in which this petition has been filed are as follows:

2. The respondent No. 2 was a workman in the employment of the petitioners. On 2-2-1974, he was served with a charge-sheet. He submitted a reply there to on 5-2-1973. Ad enquiry was ordered to be held on 6-2-1973, but the respondent No. 2 remained absent. However, in his absence nine witnesses ware examined on that day. But, on 7-2-1973, he was again informed by the petitioners through a registered letter to appear on 10-2-1973 to cross-examine the witnesses, if be so wanted, and also produce any witnesses in defence. The respondent No. 2 turned up on that day, but totally declined to participate in the proceedings. However, he filed a written reply again on that day. The Enquiry Officer recommended his dismissal, and he was dismissed from service on 13-2-1973 on the basis of the Report. The respondent No. 2 never addressed any grievance petition to his employer, but directly filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before the Junior Labour Court on 20-3-1973. The objections filed by the petitioners, inter alla, raised a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court. The application came to be dismissed on 16-3-1973, The finding was that the petitioners did not employ more than 49 workers, and therefore the provisions of Standing Order No. 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, did not apply, and, as a result, there could be no dismissal of the respondent No. 2. The Junior Labour Court, therefore, treated the dis. missal as termination from service, for which one month's pay in lieu of notice was allowed in addition to the leave salary and other dues to which the respondent No. 2 might have been entitled.

3. The respondent No. 2 took an appeal to the Labour Court which found that the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance were applicable in the circumstances of the case, and, as the impugned order was illegal, he was entitled to re-instatement with all the back benefits. It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioners.

4, The order of the Labour Court in regard to the applicability of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing WOW Ordinance, 1968, though not properly reasoned, would pot be open to exception, in view of the additional evidence, which was recorded. That shows that, apart from the number of workers maintained by the petitioners, there were some other employees through contractors working with the petitioners, as deposed to by Raua Fazlur Rehman, Social Security Officer, Karachi. The only question, therefore, that remains to be examined is, whether, in the absence of a grievance procedure, the application filed by the respondent No. 2 before the Junior Labour Court was maintainable at all. It is an admitted position that the matter was taken directly to the Labour Court on 20-3-1973. There is also no dispute that the dismissal of the respondent No. 2 took place on 13-2-1973.

5. Subsection (6) of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations ordinance, 1969, dispenses with the procedure prescribed under subsections (1) to (4) in regard to the workers aggrieved by the termination - of their employment as a result of retrenchment, dismissal, discharge, lay out, ete, not earlier than two months preceding the commencement of the Industrial Relations' (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972. This amending Ordinance was promulgated on the 10th of November, 1972. The dismissal of the respondent No. 2 does not fall within two months, preceding the promulgation of the said ordinance. I respectfully agree with the view taken in the case of Karachi Shipyards & Engineering Works Ltd, Karachi v. Second Sind Labour Court (1) in which it was held that the concession contained in subsection (6) of section 25-A was limited in nature and for the period specified therein. The case of the respondent No. 2 is not covered up under the scheme of subsection (6) of section 2j-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Thus, the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, as held by me earlier in the case of Karachi Development Authority v. Presiding Officer, II Sind Labour Court, Karachi and others (2). Under the circumstances, the impugned order is not in the exercise of lawful authority.

6. In the result, the impugned order is quashed, and the petition is allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.

Petition allowed.

(1) P L D 1975 Kar. 719 (2) P L D 1975 Kar. 716

Find a Lawyer Near You

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