Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SUK‑28 of 1982, heard on 21st November, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) ‑---

--‑‑S. 25‑Gri;vance petition‑Maintainability‑Only for enforcement of right guaranteed or secured under law, settlement or award‑Appli cations invited for fresh appointment from retrenched workers after 18 months of their retrenchment through public notice in news papers‑ ‑Case held not falling within ambit of S. O. 14 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 because re‑employment not being made within 12 months of retrenchment‑Mere public notice did not create any right of re‑employment‑Non‑re‑employment pursuant to such public notice, held, did not create a right for grievance petition before Labour Court.

Abdul Ghani for Appellant.

Hassan Hameedi for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 21st November, 1982.

This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned VIIth Labour Court, given on 23rd December, 1981, directing the S.R.T.C., the appellants herein, to re‑instate the respondent workman with full back benefits.

2. The admitted facts of this case are that the respondent was employed by the appellants as a conductor. By an order, dated 28th January, 1980, the services of the respondent workman as well as of 291 other conductors. were retrenched with effect from 31st January, 1980. on account of economical reasons and re‑organization of the S. R. T. C. By this order, the retrenched staff was required to collect their outstanding dues including one month's notice pay. It appears that in accordance with this order, the respondent collected his dues, including one month's notice pay. The appellants later issued a notice, which was published in the National Newspapers on or about 15th August, 1981, stating that seniority list of the retrenched bus conductors had been prepared and if any of the retrenched . staff was desirous of fresh appointment in the S. R. T. C., he should make an application in that behalf to the relevant Depot within 15 days and obtain further instructions in this behalf. Pursuant to this public notice, the respondent and some retrenched conductors applied for re‑employment in the S. .R. T. C. The respondent, however, was offered temporary employment on daily wages and not re‑employment. He refused the offer of employment on daily wages and preferred a grievance petition to the learned Labour Court claiming re‑instatement in service with effect from the date of the publication of the notice in the Newspaper. The learned Labour Court has taken the view that as the respondent ‑had applied 1 or reinstate ment in service pursuant to the public notice published in the Newspapers and as he was senior to some of the staff which have been taken back in service, he was entitled to re‑instatement in service.

3. I had originally ordered that this case be heard alongwith 3 other cases in which certain conductors had claimed reinstatement in service on the basis of the public notice issued by the appellants. It, however, appears that the facts of these 3 cases are altogether different from the facts of the present appeal. In those 3 cases, the workmen were actually appointed and had worked as bus conductors, on the basis of their applications made pursuant to the public notice, for varying periods from 2 to 6 months. The respondent in this appeal was also offered a temporary employment on daily wages, but as already indicated, he refused the offer.

4. I have heard Mr. Abdul Gha1,i, the learned counsel for the appel lants, and Mr. Hassan Hameedi, who appeared for the respondent. The respondent clearly cannot have resort. to the provisions of Standing Order 14 as the provisions of the said Standing Order are applicable in cases where the employer proposes to re‑employ staff within 12 months of the retrench ment of his former workmen, whereas in the instant case, the public notice inviting applications for fresh employment, was admittedly issued on 15t August, 1981, more than 18 months after retrenchment order, dated 3181 January, 1980. Mr. Hassan Hameedi. however, sought to rely upon the public notice inviting applications, issued by the appellants. A grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O., however, can only be filed or main tained in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to a worker by or under any law or any award or a settlement for the time being in force. Mr. Hassan Hameedi was unable to satisfy me that the public notice issued by the appellants could be considered to be a law, a settlement or an award. I am, therefore; of opinion that no right to the respondent under any law, settlement or award was infringed which entitled him to file a grievance petition against the appellants. The grievance petition of the respondent thus was clearly not maintainable.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court and would allow the appeal.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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