Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑661 of,1982/Pb., decided on 13th December, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑--

--‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38‑D‑Wage Commission Award‑An award creating right -Infringement of such right‑Challengeable before Labour Court‑Bank workman dismissed on charge not amounting to misconduct under sub‑para. (2) of para. 258 of Wage Commission Award‑Held, entitled to seek remedy under S. 25‑A‑Dismissal, held, does not amount to exclusion from definition of workman under S. 2 (xxviii).

Atta‑ur‑Rchman for Appellant.

Date of hearing;: 1st December, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 4‑11‑1982, passed by the learned Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent for his reinstatement in service was accepted. The allegation against the respondent was that he had informed one Muhammad Yousaf Cousin of Mushtaq Ahmad, Cashier of the appellant bank about the detection of a fraud committed by Mushtaq Ahmad as a result of which the matter was settled between Abdul Aziz account holder and Mushtaq Ahmad outside the Bank and the fraud case could not be proved. The facts are that Abdul Aziz had delivered Rs. 33,900 to Mushtaq Ahmad Cashier for being credited in his account but later on it was found that the amount had trot been Credited in his account and had been misappropriated by Mushtaq Ahmad Cashier. The respondent was charge‑sheeted for having given information to Muhammad Yousaf, cousin of Mushtaq Ahmad on telephone about the detection of the fraud.

The allegation made against the respondent does not amount to misconduct. It is not covered by para. (2) of paragraph 253 of the Wage Commission Award. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised some legal points, He says that the award of the Wage Commission is not the award as defined in I R b, so therefore the right guaranteed by it did not entitle him to bring application under section 25‑A of 1. R. Q. This argument has no force. The' decision of the Wage Commission is to be deemed under section 38‑D as an award of Full Bench of the Commission. Section 38‑D also says that provision of IRO could apply to this award.

Since provisions of I.R.O. apply to the award, infringement of a right guaranteed by such award is actionable under section 25‑A. The other point is that a dismissed person not being in service ceases to be a workman unless the dismissal has any connection with an industrial dispute. This argument is also not tenable. Not only in section 2 (xxviii), I.R.O. but even in other enactments while defining an employee present tense by using the word it has been used, such as section 2 (i) of Standing Order Ordinance, B and section 2 of the Civil Servants Act. If the argument of the learned counsel is accepted then the terminated persons shall have no right to challenge the order of removal from service in any forum. But this is not the intention of legislator. 1, therefore overrule the objection.

As a result of the observation made above I do not find any force in the appeal and dismissed it in limine.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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