Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑183 of 1981, heard on 19th April, 1981.

‑‑ S. 25‑A‑Work‑charged employee of Public Works Department of Federal Government seeking remedy against termination of service‑Termination order dated 30th July, 1971‑Grievaqce petition filed on 4th August, 1980‑Impugned order passed on date when S. 25‑A not on statute‑Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972 adding S. 25‑A promulgated on 10th November, 1972‑Petitioner could approach Labour Court for relief if impugn ed order had been passed on or after 11^th September, 1972‑Sub section (6) of S. 25‑A required filing of grievance petition within a period of 2 months of commencement of Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, .1973 promulgated on 9th February, 1973 Petition thus could have been filed before 9th April, 1973‑S. O. 18 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 in force on date of impugned order Requirement of S. O. 18 also not having been complied with Petition, in circumstances, held, not maintainable.

Appellant in person.

Date of hearing : 19th April, 1981

The appeal is directed against a decision of the learned Vth Labour Court, given on 18th February, 1981, dismissing the grievance petition filed by the appellant to challenge the order of his termination of services, dated 30th July, 1971, on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

2. It is the case of the appellant that he was appointed as Store Clerk in the Aviation Division, Ports and Building of Pakistan P. W. D. Karachi, as far back as on 12th October, 1956. It appears that the Avia tion Division was abolished and consequently the appellant was declared surplus. However, by order, dated 16^thDecember, 1965 he was directed to be absorbed in E/M Division. Difficulties, however, arose in the absorb tion of the appellant in the' E/M Division, which difficulties, according to the appellant, were mainly due to the hostility of the Overseer incharge, who was interested in seeing that the appellant's post was occu pied by his nephew. Ultimately, by letter, dated 30th July, 1971, the services of the appellant were terminated with effect from 11th June, 1970, the date from which, according to the Department, the appellant had remained absent from his duties.

3. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal first through a Constitution Petition filed in the High Court, but the same was dismissed on 2nd January, 1975, on the ground that due to the recent amendment in the Constitution, the appellant's petition abates but he has a right to approach the Services Tribunal for relief. The appellant accordingly approached the Services Tribunal but his appeal was dismissed by the said Tribunal by its order, dated 19th July, 1975, on the ground that it had no jurisdiction in the matter as the appellant was not a civil servant, being employed on work‑charged basis. The appellant, thereupon, filed a Civil Suit against the termination of his services but the same was dismissed by a learned Civil Judge, Karachi, by his order, dated 26th March, 1980, on the ground that the appellant, being a work‑charged employee, could approach the Labour Courts for relief. The appellant finally sub mitted a grievance petition under section 25‑A, 1. R. O., before the learn ed Vth Labour Court on 4th August, 1980, after serving a grievance notice upon his employer. The appellant's grievance petition, as already stated, has been dismissed by the learned Labour Court by the impugned decision, dated 18th February, 1981,

4. The appellant's grievance petition, in mfr opinion, is not main tainable at least on two grounds. The first ground is that the appellant's grievance admittedly arose on 30th July, 1971, when the orders terminating his service were issued. At that time, section 25‑A, 1. R. O., was not on the Statute Book, the said section having been added to the 1. R. O. by Ordinance IX of 1972, which came into force on 13th April, 1972. According to subsection (6) of section 25‑A, I. R. O., which was added by Act XXIX of 1973, a person whose services had been terminated not earlier than 2 months preceding the commencement of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, was entitled to approach the Labour Court concerned for relief and redress within a period of two months from the commencement of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973 or the termination of his employment whichever was later. Since the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, was pro mulgated on 10th November, 1972, the appellant could have approached the Labour Court for redress if the termination of his services had been on or after 11th September, 1972. However, as the order terminating his services was admittedly issued on 30^thJuly, 1971, the appellant was not entitled under the provisions of the above subsection to approach the learned Labour Court.

5. The grievance petition of the appellant was further not maintain able as it was required to be filed, in view of the provisions contained in subsection (6) of section 25‑A, 1. R. O., within a period of 2 months from the commencement of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973, B which came into force on 9th February,1973. In other words, the appellant could bring his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, assuming that he was entitled to do so, before 9th April, 1973, but he actually submitted his grievance petition to the learned Labour Court several years later, on 4th August, 1980.

6. It may finally be pointed out that at the time when the services of the appellant were terminated, Standing Order 18 was in force. The said Standing order required an aggrieved workman to bring his grievance to the notice of his employer in writing within 15 days of the occurrence of the cause of grievance. This admittedly was not done. Furthermore, they said Standing order required that such an aggrieved workman must file a complaint td the Industrial Court against his employer within 60 days of the service by him of notice on the employer. This also admittedly was not done.

7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find that the appellant's grievance petition is not maintainable by reason of the aforesaid grounds would accordingly dismiss the appeal in limine.

Appeal dismisssed

Find a Lawyer Near You

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