Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Appeal No. RI‑562 of 1981. decided on 19th January, 1983.
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑
‑‑ S. O. 15 (3) (c)‑Misconduct‑Wilful damage to employer's property‑Workman dismissed from service on charge allegedly wilful damage of face mill inasmuch screw of cutter was loose and he despite knowledge did not tighten it‑Screw being loose could not be established with certainty‑Damage possible for other reasons also‑No evidence for how long damaged cutter was in use and what was its normal life‑Re‑instatement awarded by Labour Court, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37.
‑‑ Ss. 5 & 6 read with Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 2 (XIV) & 25‑A and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2 (f)‑Grievance petition of individual workman‑Jurisdiction Establishment within ambit of Pakistan Essential Services (Mainte nance) Act, 1952‑National Industrial Relations Commission's power to regulate employment in establishment, held, does not include to adjudicate‑Grievance petition against dismissal on account of misconduct resisted on contention that Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 was applicable to establishment and N. I. R. C. had framed rules providing that it was forum to adjudi cate upon grievances of employers and workers hence Labour Court had no jurisdiction‑Establishment covered by definition of "industrial establishment" under S. 2 ( f ) of West Pakistan Indus trial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and "industry" under S. 2 (xiv) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑Contention rejected and Labour Court, in circumstances, held, had jurisdiction to adjudicate grievance petition.
PLD 1982 S C 113 rel.
Asghar Mahmood for Appellant.
A. K. Dogar for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 16th January, 1983.
This appeal arises from the decision, dated 14th September, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi whereby the respondent was directed to be re‑instated in service without back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had wilfully damaged the Face Mill. It is said that the screw of the cutter was loose which was in the knowledge of the respondent yet he did not tighten it. This could not establish with certainty that the screw was loose. If the screw had been found loose by some person, he would have set it right. There may be some other reasons for the cutter could be damaged. Every implement has some duration of life and has to yield one day. Again if there are manifestly defects in a thing, it can give way before its normal life. There is no evidence for how long the cutter was in use and normally what is its life.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since Essential Services (Maintenance) Act applies to the appellant, the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction. This argument too is without force. The N. I. R. C. framed rules and provided that it was the forum to adjudicate upon the grievances of the employer and the worker. The Supreme Court has in P L D 1982 S C 113 observed that the powers to regulate does not include to adjudicate and held that N. I. R. C. had no jurisdiction to decide the case of dismissal and termination of services. Since there is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact whether the appellant is not covered by the definition of industrial establishment' as defined in section 2 (f) of Standing Orders Ordinance and industry' as defined in section 2 (xiv) of the industrtial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the labour laws are applicable to the appellant. This is not the case of the appellant that the respondent is not a workman, so only the Labour Court has jurisdiction.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, I do not find any force in the appeal and dismiss it.
A. E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer