Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. KAR-655 of 1983, heard on 8th October, 1985.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)--
---S. 1(4)(c), proviso--Pakistan Railways--Whether within ambit of Ordinance--Pakistan Railways Efficiency and Discipline Rules--Whether statutory Rules--[Quaere].
Muhammad Yousaf Khan for Appellant.
Ch. Rasheed Ahmad for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 8th October, 1985.
The instant appeal is directed against the order of IInd Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dated 23-11-1985.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was working as an Electrician with Pakistan Railways, Karachi, and proceeded without an intimation to his village to attend to his ailing mother. His absence from duty was noted by the Railway Department. The appellant proceeded unauthorisedly on 23-4-1981 to 9-7-1982, and then, he came for resumption of duties on 19-8-1982 and he was not allowed to join the duties. Thereafter, his services were terminated. He filed the grievance petition under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
3. The stand taken by the Railway Department is that section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, is not applicable to this case as Standing Orders Ordinance, 1969, is also not applicable. Section 1(4) provided that the employees of the Federal Government having Statutory Rules are not, governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. This main objection was raised by the Railway Department.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties in this appeal. Although the Electrician is a workman under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, yet it is doubtful whether the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, would be applicable. Railway Department has the Rules known as Pakistan Railway Efficiency and Discipline Rules but the same are not statutory as they are framed by their Board and the Federal Government had not approved. The Advocates did not throw enough light on this issue particularly. A number of cases had already been decided by this Tribunal but this contention was not argued or decided.
5. On facts, there is an admission by the appellant that he left for his village on 23-4-1981 and reported for duty on 8-7-1982. This means that he remained absent without permission for more than a year. He could not explain the same before the authorities and the Rules, which were prevalent, with the Railway Department, his services were terminated There is an notice under section 25-A I.R.O. 1969 and even on this count the petition is not maintainable. His services were terminated on 8-7-1982 and a grievance notice was not given to the respondent management.
6. I find no force in this appeal and dismiss it accordingly.
A.E. Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer