Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.LHR-75 of 1985, decided on 8th July, 1985.

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

---S. 2(i) and S.O. 12(3)--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25-A 38(3)--Dismissal from service or termination of service--Grievance petition maintainable--Sweeper of Pakistan Television Corporation performing manual work--"Workman" under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968--Grievance petition against dismissal of such sweeper disallowed by Labour Court on grounds that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not applicable to respondent-Corporation--Sweeper covered by definition of "Workman" under West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, in circumstances, held, could bring petition under S. 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by virtue of S.O. 12(3)--Labour Court, held, wrongly disallowed grievance petition.

---Ss.25-A & 38(3)--Appeal-Question of fact cannot be raise time at appellate stage--Question whether or not provision Q for first Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 were applicable Pakistan respondent-establishment not raised before Labour Court Plea to ground involving question of fact, in circumstances, held, cannot that raised in appeal and case remanded.

H.R. Haider for Appellant.

Syed Mohsin Zaidi for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 2nd July, 1985.

The decision, dated 23-12-1984 recorded by the learned presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was returned on the ground that it did not lie.

2. The appellant was Jamadar in grade 'A' in Pakistan Television Corporation. He was employed on 1-12-1979. He was dismissed on 26-11-1983. His grievance petition was disallowed on the ground that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not applicable to the respondent The learned lower Court has not held that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is also not applicable. By virtue of Order 12(3) a person whose service has been terminated or who has been dismissed can bring an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to the Labour Court. This was not the case of the respondent that the appellant is not covered by the definition of workmen given under section 2(i) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1963. The appellant being a sweeper has to do manual work so he is covered the definition and thus could take benefit of the provision of Standing Orders Ordinance. 1968. This aspect of the case was not bought to the notice of the learned lower Court; therefore, it wrongly held that the grievance petition did not lie.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that Essential Services Act applies to the respondent, therefore, the forum for the appellant was not the Labour Court but the otie stated in section 7 of the said Act. There is no notification on the record to show if Essential Services Act was made applicable to the Pakistan Television Corporation. Such a point was not raised before the learned lower Court nor there is any finding on it. This is a question of fact whether Essential Services Act has been declared to be appealable to the Pakistan Television Corporation, therefore, at the appellate stage such a question could not be raised. Since the case is being remanded, the respondent may raise such a point in written statement the learned lower Court allows amendment of the written statement.

4. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded with the direction that after issuing notices to respondents and after giving opportunity to both the parties the case be decided on merits as well as on legal points.

1. 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.