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.
Appeal No. KAR‑88 of 1981, heard on 12th February, 1981.
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1959)‑‑
‑‑‑ S. 1(4)‑Karachi Metropolitan Corporation employees‑ Ordinance not applicable to employees other than those employed in establishment which may properly be considered as industrial or commercial‑‑Employ of Zoo of K. M. C.‑Not employed in industrial or commercial establishment‑Not within ambit of Ordinance.
‑‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 37‑Termination order set aside on technical grounds‑‑Employer ordinarily should be given opportunity of holding fresh enquiry‑‑Back benefits should be made dependent upon result of such enquiry‑Labour Court making back benefits dependent upon fresh enquiry to be completed with 3 months‑Appeal against orders of Labour Court, in circumstances, dismissed in limine.
Ch. M. Maarif for Appellant.
Date of hearing : 12th February, 1981.
This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned Fourth Labour Court given on 7th January, 1980, directing the re‑instatement in service of the appellant, but at the same time gives an option to the respondent‑Corporation, the K. M. C., to take action in accordance with the law against the appellant as also afford him an opportunity of personal hearing and makes the payment of back benefits to the appellant dependent upon such action being taken against him within three months.
2. This appeal is open to two legal objections. The first is that the appeal is based on the provisions of the Standing Orders. However, this Tribunal has held in the case of Karachi Metropolitan Corporation v. Nawab Sibi and another, decided on 25th November, 1980, that the K. M. C. is neither an industrial nor commercial establishment for the purposes of the Sind Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance. 1968, and, accordingly, the provisions the Standing Orders are not applicable to its employees other than who are employed in establishment which may be properly considered industrial or commercial establishments. The appellant was employed a Zoo and cannot be considered to be employed in an industrial or mercial establishment.
3. The second objection as to the maintainability of the appeal is that Tribunal has been consistently holding that when an order of termination of services has been set aside on a technical ground, the employer ordinarily should be given an opportunity of holding a fresh enquiry, as is the present case, and the award of back benefits should bell dependent upon the result of such enquiry. The latest decision on this point is in the case of Mahmood Shah v. Dawood Cotton Mills and another (Constitutional Petition No. D‑804 of 1979), decided by a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court on 15th May, 1979. In the instant case, the dismissal orders in respect of the appellant, which were subsequently converted into orders of compulsory retirement, have been set aside on the technical ground that the said orders were passed in contravention of the provisions both of the Standing Orders and of rule 5 of the Efficiency and Discipline Rules applicable to the K.M.C.
4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer