Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑135 of 1984, heard on 8th January, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 1 (3), 25‑A & 38 (3)‑West Pakistan Industrial and Com mercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2 (i) and S. Os. 12 (3) & 15 (4)‑Termination of service‑Grie vance petition‑Petitioner admittedly a workman as defined under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance. 1968 and employer establishment covered by Ordinance ibid‑Plea that Establishment excluded from purview of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 under S. 1(3), held. not relevant‑Labour Court simply on point that employer establishment not covered by Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 dismissing grievance petition without application of mind whether S. O. 12(3) or 15(4) would be applicable‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, setting aside order of Labour Court and remanding case to Labour Court for decision after recording evidence.

1981 P L C 630 and Jhonson and Jhonson (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Zubair Ahmad 1980 P L C 622 rel.

Ali Amjad for Appellant.

Muhammad Naseem for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 8th January, 1985.

This is an appeal directed against the impugned order of the Sind Labour Court No. 5, Karachi, dated 5th April, 1984 whereby the grievance petition of the appellant is rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C.

2. The grievance petition is rejected on the preliminarly objections filed by the respondents that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is not applicable to the respondent establishment in view of the fact that section 1 (4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, bars the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.

3. Obaidullah was a permanent workman employed with the respon dent establishment as an Operator since 17th July, 1980. The respondents are an industrial establishment and covered by the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The appellant was not allowed to perform duties since 23rd April, 1983 and was gate‑stopped. He was verbally told that his services have been terminated. No written orders of the termination were communicated nor otherwise any charge‑sheet was given. He has, there. fore, prayed that his services are terminated without reasons or enquiry and that he should be re‑instated with all back benefits.

4. The reply statement is that the appellant was an employee of the company. The preliminary objection is that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, or the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, or other Labour Laws have no application in the present case. He was not refused any entry in the factory nor his services were verbally terminated or dismissed. The appellant has withdrawn himself from the duty of his own accord to avoid enquiries which were in offing. This briefly is the stand taken by the respondents. It is further added that the company is the defence, oriented enterprise brought about with Austria Co‑ordination. It manu factures defence stores, hand grenade and halmets mainly used by the defence forces and the machinery is imported on Defence quota and is exempted from the operation of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under section 1 (3).

5, I have heard Mr. Ali Amjad, Advocate, for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Naseem, Advocate, for the respondent‑establish ment.

6. The points raised by the learned counsel, Mr. Ali Amjad are that the plea raised by the respondents as regards to the application of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, vide section 1(3) does not bar the appellant to agitate grievance application under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and the grievance petition is maintainable under Standing Order 12 (3) of the said Ordinance, 1968. Mr. Ali Amjad further argued that the same question was decided by a Judgment, reported in 1981 P L C 630. The respondents, namely, Ulbright's (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi, raised the same plea and the plea was rejected. It was also decided in the case reported in Jhonson and Jhonson (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Zubair Ahmad (1980 P L C 622). In this case also it was decided that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, was applicable. The appellant is admitted to be a workman a.: Operator with the respondent establishment. Since the appellant is a workman, the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, is applicable even though Industrial Re lations Ordinance, 1969, may not be applicable. The arguments of Mr. Naseem are replied by this Tribunal in the case, reported in 1981 P L C 630 in the words of Mr. Justice (Retd.) Z. A. Channa. The quotation is as under :‑

'I, however, find it unnecessary to go into the question whether the appellant‑company is performing services or it is in installation connected with or incidential to the Armed Forces of Pakistan, and, therefore, the application of the provisions of the I. R.O. to it is excluded, for the grievance petitions by the 3 respondents are not under the I.R.O., as having been removed from service, they do not fall within the definition of workers for the purposes of the I.R.O., but their grievance petitions fall to be considered under clause (3) of Standing Order 12, as held by this Tribunal in the case of Jhonson and Jhonson v. Zubair Ahmad."

In the impugned order only the point that Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969, is excluded is considered but the learned Labour Court has not applied its mind whether Standing Order 12(3), or Standing Order 15(4) would be applicable in the present case. In my view the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, is applicable in the present case and since no enquiry has been conducted by the respondent‑establishment with regard to the miscon duct or otherwise of the appellant, the order under. Order VII, rule 11 C.P.C. is set aside.

8. The appellant has to prove that his services were terminated verbally and that no enquiry was held. Therefore, this case must be remanded to the Court having jurisdiction to record evidence and come to a conclusion in accordance with Law.

A. E.

Appeal accepted. Case remanded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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