Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos. JM‑371 and 372 of 1985, decided on 11th December, 1985

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

‑‑‑S. 1(4) and S.O. 12(3)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.l(3) & 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service or dismissal from service‑‑Maintainability of‑‑Neither any objection nor evidence suggesting non‑application of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968‑‑Petition, in circumstances, held, maintainable even if Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 not applicable.

Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Appellants.

M. Hanif Bhatti for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 7th December, 1985.

Since identical legal questions are involved in the two appeals captioned above, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment. The decisions, dated 5‑5‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi have been challenged, whereby the grievance petitions of the appellants .for their re‑instatement in service were dismissed on the sole ground that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable to the respondent.

2. Mehr Din, appellant, was a chowkidar, whereas Muhammad Aslam, appellant, was a cooli. The allegations against them was that they had stolen a bag of 25 kilograms of skimmed milk. The learned lower Court has held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as well as Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are not applicable to the respondent. So far as applicability of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is concerned, such an objection can be found in the written statement but it is nowhere contended in it that the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable or that the respondent establishment is being run by or under the authority of the Government and that it has its own statutory rules of service or discipline. So far as the question of non‑applicability of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is concerned, there is no evidence on the record oral or documentary that the respondent establishment has any connection with or is incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan. This was a question of fact and could have been proved by evidence. Simply because the name and style of the respondent establishment is Military Farm is not sufficient. It may be supplying its products to Military also besides sending to the market and create an impression upon the public that its products were free from any kind of adulteration, it may have been named of as Military Farm. It appears that the learned lower Court was impressed by the name of the respondent establishment and thus held that it stood exempted from the application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.

3. So far as Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is concerned, not only that in the written statement any such objection was taken, even there is no evidence on the record to the effect that it is being run by or under the authority of any Government. There is no evidence that it has its own statutory rules. No doubt, action was taken under Efficiency & Discipline Rules meant for Government, servants but this alone is not sufficient. There is no evidence that the Government Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules have been adopted by the respondent for its employees. So even if under section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the said Ordinance is not applicable, yet Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies vide Standing Order 12(3), which states that the workers dismissed or terminated from service etc can apply under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969. So the learned lower Court erred in holding in the absence of evidence that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is no applicable.

4. So far as Mehr Din, appellant, is concerned, the learned lower Court has wrongly held that he is not a workman. No such objection was taken by the respondent in the written statement. Every chowkidar is not excluded from the definition of workmen so far as the definition given in section 2(i) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is concerned. The chowkidars (called gatemen) may be declared workmen if it is proved by evidence that they perform manual or clerical duties. Even chowkidars guarding the premises of factories and offices at night may be covered by the definition if it is proved that they have to perform manual or clerical duties as well.

5. As a result, the appeals are accepted and setting aside the impugned decisions so far as they relate to the finding that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 are not applicable and that Mehr Din, appellant, is not a workman, the cases are remanded with the direction that they be decided afresh after inviting evidence on the points wrongly decided.

A. E.

Appeals 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.