Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. HYD‑218 of 1981, heard on 22nd October, 1981.

‑‑‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 37 read with Road Transport Corporation (West Pakistan) Removal of Undesirable Employees Ordinance (VIII of 1965), S. 4‑Law providing right of appeal to employee of Road Transport Corporation against removal from service‑Appeal admittedly pending before Government‑‑Labour Court accepting grievance petition‑Grievance petition, in circumstances, held, premature hence order of Labour Court set aside‑Petitioner, held, could file grievance petition if aggrieved by final order on appeal.

Raes Muhammad Mushtaq for Appellant.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing: 22nd October, 1981.

This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIth Labour Court, given on 4th April, 1981, setting aside the order of the Chairman. S. R. T. C., dated 22nd May, 1980, made under the Road Transport Corporation (West Pakistan) Removal of Undesirable Employees Ordinance, 1965, and directing the S. R. T. C. to re‑instate in service the respondent with back benefits. This order is grounded on the view taken by the learned Labour Court that the order terminating the services of the respondent is mala fide in that it was passed without there being any enquiry into the alleged undesirable activities of the respondent or an opportunity being given to the respondent to rebut the allegations made against him.

2. It may be pointed out that the Ordinance in question provides for an appeal being preferred to the Government by the aggrieved party. Respondent, Syed Abid Ali Shah, who is present in person has submitted that he has preferred an appeal to the Government which is pending. In view of this fact and the assurance given at the Bar by Mr. Raes Mohammad Mushtaq on behalf of the appellants to the effect that if an appeal has been preferred by the respondent, it will be duly considered by the Government, it would appear that the proceedings initiated by the respondent under section 25‑A, I. R. O., are premature. This position is accepted by the respondent who submits that he is agreeable to the Order of the learned Labour Court being set aside in view of his appeal to the Government.

3. For the reasons discussed by me above, I consider that the grievance petition filed by the respondent is premature and would accordingly set aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court. It. will be open to the respondent, if he is aggrieved by the appellate decision of the Government to challenge the same through appropriate proceedings.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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