Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑713 of 1981, decided on 30th January, 1983.

West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑

‑‑‑ S. 1 (4) (b)‑Applicability of ,Ordinance‑Number of ;,workers employed and not total number of employees‑Determining factor Employees not falling within definition of "workman"‑Not to be counted.

Faizullah Khan for Appellant.

Mian Muhammad Yasin for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 23rd January, 1983.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 10th November, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstate ment in service was dismissed.

2. The appellant was promoted on 25th January, 1979 as Supervisor vide Exh. P. 3 from the post of Computer Operator. On 31st June, 1980 his services were terminated on account of misconduct. No charge‑sheet was given and no enquiry was held. The grievance petition of the appel lant has been dismissed for the reason that the number of workers being less than twenty, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable. According to R. W. 1 there were 13 workers in the year in which the appellant was terminated. According to him, Computer Operators, Opera tion Supervisors, Programmers, Senior Programmers, Accountants, Chief Accountant and System Analyst were not workmen. Neither the appellant nor R. W. 1 gave the duties of the employees, who, according to R. W. 1, are not workmen. The statement of R. W. 1 does not stand controverted, because the appellant did not say that the number of workers is so or more. He said that it was incorrect that the number of employees was less than twenty. It is immaterial if employees are more than twenty. Workers should be more than twenty. Since the duties of Operators, Programmers and System Analysts are not given, it is difficult to hold that they were workmen according to the definition given in Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Accountants may be registered as workers, because according to their designation, they appear to be doing clerical work but by their addi tion the number of workers increases to 16 only. The learned lower Court thus has rightly held that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, accord ing to the evidence, was not applicable. Since the said Ordinance does not apply, there is no right guaranteed to the appellant by any law and thus his petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not competent.

3. As upshot of the observations made above, the appeal is dismissed.

A. E. 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.