Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑210 of 1981, heard on Std May, 1981.

‑‑‑ S. 35 ‑ Territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court ‑ Railway employee while in service transferred from K to R but instead of resuming duty at R remaining absent resulting in termination of service by competent authority at R‑Grievance notice sent to com petent authority at R‑‑.Labour Court at R and not at K where petitioner resides, held, would have jurisdiction‑‑Petition before Labour Court at K not maintainable.

Mohammad Iqbal Malik for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 3rd May, 1981.

The appellant, who was employed as Watchman in the Pakistan Railway, was removed from service with effect from 16^thNovember, 1975, vide order, dated December, 1975, on the charge of remaining absent from his duties for a period of over 5 years. The cause of absence from his duties of the appellant appears to be that he was transferred from Karachi to Rawalpindi where he failed to join his duties. The appellant challenged the termination of his services by way of a grievance petition before the learned Vth Labour Court at Karachi. His grievance petition has been dismissed by the learned Labour Court on the grounds, firstly, that as the appellant was Watchman, he did not fall within the definition of workman as given in the Standing Orders and, secondly, that the grievance petition was hopelessly time‑barred having been filed almost 6 years after the termination of services of the appellant, and that finally, the appellant's grievance petition was further barred by the provisions of Pakistan Railway Police Ordinance, 1976.

2. It is an admitted position that the appellant was employed as a Watchman in the Railway administration when his services were termi nated. The consistent view taken by this Tribunal has been that a Watchman or Chowkidar does not fall within the definition of workman as given in the Standing Orders and consequently he is not entitled to file or maintain a grievance petition under clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I. R. O. This view has been reiterated by this Tribunal in the case of Sardar Zan Khan v. Pfizer Laboratories Appeal No. KAR‑655/80, decided on 28th October, 1980.

3. It is also an admitted position that the services of the appellant were, terminated by the order, dated December, 1975, with effect from 16th November, 1975, on account of his continued absence with effect from 8th October, 1976, while the grievance petition was filed by him on 24th January, 1980, i.e., more than 4 years later. The appellant sought to explain the delay in the filing of the grievance petition by asser ting that he filed a departmental appeal against his removal from service and it was only on 15th November, 1979, that he came to know that his appeal had been rejected. However, neither a copy of the departmental appeal was brought on the record nor is there any tangible evidence to show when this appeal was filed and decided. No grounds thus exist for condoning this long delay in the filing of the grievance petition the appellant.

4. There is also another ground on which the appellant's grie vance petition is liable to be dismissed. The order of termination of services of the appellant has been issued by the Assistant Personnel Offi cer, Pakistan Railway Rawalpindi. This was because the appellant had been transferred from Karachi to Rawalpindi. The grievance petition has also been filed against the Railway administration at Rawalpindi. Furthermore, not only the grievance notice was given to the Superintendent, Watch and Ward, Rawalpindi, but the representation, dated 15^th September, 1979, photo copy of which has been produced by the appellant, is addressed to the said officer. As such, despite the fact that the appellant may have been residing at Karachi, it is the Labour Court at Rawalpindi and not the Labour Court at Karachi, which has jurisdiction in the matter.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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