Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. MN‑238 of 1982, heard on 12th April, 1982.

‑‑ Ss. 1 (3), 25‑A & 38 (3) read with Pakistan Railway Police Act (VII of 1977), Ss. 5 & 6‑Applicability of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1968 to Watch and Ward Department of Pakistan Railway‑Conditions of service of Watch and Ward Department employees under Railway Rules held, not changed till actual merger of that Department in Pakistan Railway Police takes place‑Watch man dismissed for misconduct‑Alleged misconduct and service of charge‑sheet prior to merger‑S. 1 (3) of Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969, in circumstances, held, not applicable hence Labour Court had jurisdiction‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition on ground that it had no jurisdiction, in circumstances, set aside by appellate Tribunal and case remanded to Labour Court for decision on merits.

Writ Petition No. 178 of 1978 (unreported) rel.

Aga Asif Jaffery for Appellant.

Gulzar Ahmed Alvi for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 12th April, 1982.

This appeal arises from the decision dated 14th February, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his reinstate ment in service was dismissed, on the ground that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction.

2. Facts are that the appellant was a Watchman in the Railway till 18th of October, 1978 when he was dismissed on the charge of theft. He was tried in a criminal case also but was acquitted on 6th July, 1978.

The Watch and Ward Department was brought under the control of the Railway Police. There it was contended on . behalf of the respondent that jurisdiction of the Labour Court was barred under section 1, subsec tion (3), clause A of Industrial Relations Ordinance. This is true that before the appellant was charge‑sheeted under enactment Watch and Ward Department of Railway was directed to be brought under the control of Railway Police, but the question is whether till then actually merger had taken place. On behalf of the appellant reliance has been placed upon a letter of the Railway Department Exh. P. 6. In this letter reference is made to the decision of a High Court. The said reference reads as under:‑

" A copy of the order of the High Court in the above‑noted writ petition together with the copy of para. 5 of the respondent's reply, referred to therein is enclosed for your information, guidance and further necessary action.

The Hon'ble Court has held that it cannot be demanded by a petitioner under Article 199 that regulations be framed or that merger should be completed. It is provided for under the law and it has to take place.

The Hon'ble Court has further ordered that as long as the said merger does not take place missing (sic) and condition, which include the facilities and the complement etc. will continue to hold good."

It is apparent from Exh. P. 6 that it was observed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 178 of 1978 that merger has not taken place till then and that till merger takes place conditions which includes facilities and the complement would continue to hold good. The date of the decision of the writ petition is 14th May, 1978 whereas the date of charge‑sheet given to the appellant is 7th May, 1978. It is, thus, clear that tit the time of commission of alleged misconduct and the delivery of charge‑sheet to the appellant merger has not taken place. The Railway Rule, therefore A was still applicable and the appellant till then had not become the emp loyee of the Railway Police. Section 1, clause (iii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance had not become applicable. The Labour Court, there fore, has jurisdiction in the matter.

3. As a result of the observations made above I accept the appeal and reversing the finding of the lower Court remand the case to decided on merits.

A.E. 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.