Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeals Nos. HYD‑69 and 70 of 1980, heard on 24th January, 1981.
‑‑ S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2 (i) and S.O. 12 (3)‑Termination of service‑Neither in consequence of nor leading to industrial dispute‑Grievance petition before Labour Court‑Maintainable only by a workman as defined under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑Chowkidar in a Bank‑Not a workman‑Not entitled to grievance petition against termination of service‑Alleged non‑compliance with provisions of Banks Wage Commission Awards, 1975 and 1978, held, immaterial for purpose of maintain ability of grievance petition.
Johnson & Johnson Ltd. v. Zubair Ahmad 1980 P L C 622 rel.
Wasiullah Qureshi for Appellants.
Date of hearing : 24th January, 1981.
The services of the 2 appellants, who were employed as Chowkidars in Habib Bank Ltd., the first respondent in the 2 appeals, were terminated. The appellants challenged the termination of their services before the learn ed VIth Labour Court on the grounds that being Bank employees their terms and conditions of service were regulated by the Wage Commission Awards of 1975 and 1978, and in violation of the provisions of those Awards, their services were terminated without serving upon them any show‑cause notice or holding any enquiry. The learned Labour Court, relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Khudadad v. National Construction Company, wherein it has been held that a Chowkidar does not fall within the definition of a workman as given in the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and consequently, is not entitled to file and maintain a grievance petition under clause (3) of Stand ing Order 12, dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants. The appellants accordingly have come up in separate appeals to this Tribunal against the impugned decisions of the learned Labour Court. This Order will dispose of both the appeals.
2. It was contended by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, the learned represen tative for the appellants, that although the 2 appellants may not be the workmen for the purposes of the Standing Orders, nevertheless, since their terms and conditions are governed by the Banks Wage Commission Awards of 1975 and 1978, and as the provisions of the said awards have been violated is the instant cases, the appellants have a legal right under law which can be enforced under section 25‑A, I. R. O. As was pointed out by this Tribunal in the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd, v. Zubair Ahmed (1980 P L C 622), a person whose services have been terminated, except where the termi nation is in consequence of or has led to an industrial dispute, does not fall within the definition of a worker as given in the I. R. O., and hence is not entitled to file a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. No doubt, a workman is entitled to file a grievance petition under section 25‑A, read with clause (3) of Standing Order 12, but such petition can only be filed by a person who is a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders as has been held in the above‑reported case. It has been the consistent view of this Tribunal that a Watchman or Chowkidar does not fall within the definition of a workman as given in the Standing Orders. As such, he is not entitled to file and maintain a grievance petition against the termination of his services under clause (3) of Standing Order 12. The latest decision of this Tribunal in this behalf has been given in the case of Khudadad v. National Construction Company. It may be, as contended by Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi, that in discharging the 2 appellants. the respondent Bank has not fully followed the provisions of the Banks Wage Commission Awards of 1975 and 1978, but that does not entitle the appellants to file or maintain grievance petitions against the termination' of their services unless it was established that they are workmen for the purposes of Standing Orders. Since the appellants were Chowkidars and not employed to do any manual or clerical work. they are not entitled to file or maintain grievance petitions under Standing Orders 12.
3. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court and dismiss the two appeals in limine.
Appeals dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer