Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

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.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

ZAHOOR AHMED versus TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI


Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 Section 25 West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), Section 1 (41 and Section O12 (3) of the Government of Karachi Port Trust-administered, Service, Practices) Legally binding and discipline for employees PT employee has not been removed from employment in connection with any industrial dispute, cannot file a complaint before the Labor Court against the termination of employment.

1981 P L C 713

[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind]

Present: Z. A. Channa, Appellate Tribunal

ZAHOOR AHMED

Versus

TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI AND 2 OTHERS

Appeal No. KAR‑481 of 1980, heard on 30th November, 1980.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

‑‑‑ S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1 (41 and S. O. 12 (3)‑Karachi Port Trust run by Government having statutory rules of service, conduct and discipline for employees‑Employee of K. P. T. removed from service not in connection with any industrial dispute‑Cannot make grievance petition before Labour Court against termination of service.

Imam Bux Qazi v. Trustees of Port of Karachi 1980 P L C 495 and Johnson & Johnson v. Zubair Ahmed 1980 P L C 622 rel.

Zahid Hamid for Appellant.

Qamar Abbass for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 30th November, 1980.

DECISION

The services of the appellant, who was employed as a peon in the K.P.T., the first respondent herein, were terminated with effect from 22nd April, 1976, by an order which appears to bear no date. The order was based upon the report of the Enquiry Officer, who found that the charge of stealing two mercury bulbs had been established against the appellant, The appellant challenged the order of termination of his services before the learned first Labour Court which has dismissed his grievance petition on the ground that the evidence before the Enquiry Officer substantiates the charge of theft. The appellant has accordingly preferred an appeal to this Tribunal against the decision of the learned Labour Court.

2. I have heard Mr. Zahid Hamid, who appeared for the appellant, and Mr. Qamar Abbass, who appears for the first respondent. The fatal flaw in the case of the appellant is that his grievance petition is not maintainable. Since the services of the appellant were terminated for reasons unconnected with an industrial dispute, he does not fair within the definition of worker as given in the I. R. O. and, thus, cannot file grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R.O. He also cannot file grievance petition under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I.R.O. since the Standing Orders are not applicable to the K.P.T.. which is admittedly run by Government and has Statutory Rules of service, conduct and discipline in respect of its employees, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Imam Bux Qazi v. Trustees of Port of Karachi. (1980 P L C 495) In that case it was observed by this Tribunal as follows :‑

Since the Standing Orders are not applicable the respondent establishment, the appellant cannot invoke the provisions of clause (3) of Standing Order 12 and bring his grievance in respect of his dismissal under that clause before the learned Labour Court. Furthermore, he also cannot file: a grievance application before a Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O., as such an application can only be made by a worker as defined in the I. R. O., but the appellant, by reason of his dismissal from service, which is unconnected with an industrial dispute, has ceased to fall within the said definition, as was pointed out by this Tribunal in the case of Johnson 8c Johnson v. Zubair Ahmed , decided on 10th October, 1979. A similar view was taken by this Tribunal in the case of Liberty Mills Ltd. v. Mohammad Zaman, decided on 7th November, 1979."

3. Mr. Zahid Hamid, however, sought to argue that since the case of the appellant is that the termination of his services is unlawful, there fore, he continues to be a worker for the purposes of the I. R. O. This pro position was considered by this Tribunal in the case of Johnson & Johnson v. Zubeir Ahmed (1980 P L C 622) wherein it was held that the definition of worker as given in the I.R.O. excludes persons whose services have been terminated, unless the termination of services is in consequence of an industrial dis pute or had led to an industrial dispute, which admittedly not the case here.

4. For the foregoing reasons I see no force in this appeal and would, accordingly, dismiss the same.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
famous supreme court advocate from Shahkot lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.