Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. HYD ‑176 and 177 of 1982, heard on 24th November, 1982.

West Pakistan

--‑‑S. 1 (4)‑Hyderabad Development Authority‑Whether an industrial or commercial establishment‑Its employees whether governed by statutory rules‑Mixed question of law and facts Grievance petition of Works Supervisor of Hyderabad Develop ment Authority against termination of service‑Resisted on ground that such employee was not a workman and provisions of Ordinance were not applicable‑Labour Court dismissing grievance petition without deciding such issue‑Order of Labour Court in circum stances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded for decision whether Hyderabad Development Authority was an industrial or commercial establishment and whether petitioner was employed in any industrial or commercial undertaking in which the said authority was engaged.

Karachi Development Authority v. Muhammad Wasiq Khan 1981 P L C 952 and Karachi Development Authority v. Vth Labour Court, Karachi P L D 1976 Kar.. 514 ref.

Ali Amjad for Appellants

Iqbal Jafri for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 24th November, 1982

The 2 appellants were employed in the Hyderabad Development Authority, the common respondents herein, under the designation of Works Supervisors. By separate but similar orders, dated 23rd April, 1981, their services were terminated with effect from 30th April, 1981. Both the appellants filed grievance petitions challenging the termination of their services. The respondents resisted the 2 grievance petitions on the ground that the appellants were not workmen for the purposes of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and hence were not entitled to file and maintain grievance petitions against the termination of their services, which could only be done under the provisions of clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I. R. O. This objection prevailed with the learned Labour Court, which by a separate but similar decision dated 24th March, 1982, dismissed the grievance petitions of the 2 appellants. Aggrieved by the said decisions, the appellants have filed appeals to this Tribunal. As common issues of facts and law are involved in the 2 appeals, they have been heard together.

2. I have heard Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned counsel for the 2 appellants and Mr. Iqbal Jafri, the learned legal Advisor of the respondents. 3. As already indicated, the main issue which was canvassed before the learned Labour Court was whether the 2 appellants are workmen for the purposes of the Standing Orders and hence are entitled to file and maintain grievance petitions against the termination of their services. Another allied issue, however, which also arises in the 2 appeals is whether the Hyderabad Development Authority, which is a Statutory authority established for the development of Hyderabad city, is an industrial or commercial establishment as defined in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It may be pointed out that the Standing Orders are only applicable to he industrial and commercial establishments as defined in the said Ordinance. If, therefore, the Hyderabad Development Authority is established to be neither an industrial nor commercial establishment, obviously the Standing Orders would not be applicable to it or its employees. In the case reported as Karachi Development Authority v. Muhammad Wasiq Khan (1981 P L C 952), it was held by this Tribunal that as the Karachi Development Authority is being run under the authority of the Provincial Government and has its own statutory rules of service for employees, it was outside the ambit of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordi nance. The said decision was based on the decision of the Karachi High Court in the case of Karachi Development Authority v. Vth Labour Court, Karachi (P L D 1976 Kar. 514), and the earlier decision of this Tribunal in the case of Karachi Development Authority v. Mst. Bibi Abida decided on 16th December, 1979. This Tribunal has also held that the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, which performs functions of Local Government in the city of Karachi, is not an industrial or commer cial establishment, but if it was running any workshop or industry or was engaged in any commercial enterprise, the establishments dealing with such matters could possibly come within the definition of com mercial or industrial establishments for the purposes of the Standing Orders. On the same basis it was held by this Tribunal in the case of Ghous Bux v. Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur, decided on 25th October, 1981, that the Town Committee, Panno Aqil, was neither a commercial nor an industrial establishment for the purposes of Stand ing Orders and is employees were not entitled to file or maintain grievance petitions against the termination of their services.

4. As the issue whether the Hyderabad Development .Authority is or is not an industrial or commercial establishment for the purposes of the Standing Orders, is a mixed question of law and facts, and further, even if it is held. that the Hyderabad Development Authority, like the Karachi Development Authority or the Karachi Metropolitan corporation, is not an industrial or commercial establishment, the issue may arise whether the Hyderabad Development Authority is' running any workshop or any other enterprise which may be deemed to be an industrial or commercial establishment, and if so, whether the appellants were employed. therein. In the circumstances, 1 would,1 after setting aside the orders of the learned Labour Court, .remand A the 2 cases to it with the direction to decide the point whether the. Hyderabad Development Authority is or is not an industrial or com mercial establishment, and further whether the 2 appellants were employed in any industrial or commercial undertaking in which they, Hyderabad Development Authority was engaged, after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on the aforesaid points.

Cases renamded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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