Find a Lawyer

Appeal No.HYD-565 of 1983, heard on 10th November, 1985.

--Sched. II, Cl. (XIII-a)--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.15(4)- Treasury clerk of Pakistan Postal Department covered by definition of workman in Sched. II, C1. (XIII-a) of Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923--Removed from service for misconduct without proper enquiry- Removal order set aside by Labour Appellate Tribunal.

Wasiullah Qureshi for Appellant.

Sultan Ahmad for Respondent.

This is appeal against the impugned order of Sind Labour Court NO. VI, Hyderabad, dated 2-8-1983. The impugned order did not entertain the application of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, considering him to be a civil servant and not a workman.

2. The facts are that similar order was passed by the learned Labour Court considering the appellant /petitioner to be a civil servant and not a workman covered under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. An appeal was filed and some evidence was recorded by this Tribunal and on the basis of this evidence, the matter was remanded to the Labour Court, who once again reiterated that the appellant was a civil servant.

3. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Wasiullah Qureshi for the appellant and Mr. Sultan Ahmad, Advocate for the respondents. Subsection (xiii-a) of Schedule II of Workmen's Compensation Act is as follows: -

"(xiii-a) employed as treasurer clerks performing outdoor duties in the Pakistan Post and Telegraph Department in Baluchistan and the Karachi Division."

4. The question before the Tribunal or before the Labour Court was whether the appellant could be termed as a workman of a Civil Servant. In order to ascertain, I would revert to the evidence of Niazul Hassan Siddiqi, the then Postmaster, Hyderabad. The relevant paragraphs 1 and 2 are as under:-

"1. That the applicant was working as a Treasury Clerk in the Postal Department, on 29-10-1980. The Postmaster, Hyderabad, on 29-10-1980 ordered to transfer the applicant to the Registration and Delivery Branch of Post Office (Head Post Office), Hyderabad.

2. That on 30-10-1980, the new Postmaster took over the charge and the said orders of transfer, dated 29-10-1980, were brought into his notice whereupon he gave a verbal order to the effect that all the officials should work at the same point where they were working before 29-10-1980 till 7-2-1981. When the new trainees were expected to come after completing their training."

5. Although the appellant has deposed that he did work as Delivery Clerk but it should be construed officially that he was a Treasury Clerk and, therefore, he is a workman and the Standing Orders 1968 are very much applicable to him. This matter was remanded to the learned Labour Court to ascertain the merits of the case. In the merits of the case, the learned Labour Court has written than "the case of the appellant/ petitioner was a good one and it was not only a good one but an excellent one." The appellant's removal from service could not be ordered from retrospective effect from 29-10-1980. As per evidence of Niazul Hassan Siddiqui, the appellant worked in the Delivery Branch on 30-10-1980 and on 1-11-1980. The enquiry held by the Postal Department was not a valid enquiry. No doubt, Mr. S.M. Qureshi, Postmaster was appointed as Enquiry Officer but he did not record single evidence in the domestic enquiry as admitted in the cross -examination by Niazul Hasan Siddiqui. The Labour Court has opined that had the appellant/ petitioner been covered within the definition of workman under Workmen's Compensation Act and the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, then he could not be removed from service without complying the Standing Order 15.

6. It is to be noted that according to the evidence of Niazul Hassan Siddiqui, the appellant comes within the ambit of clause (xiii-a) off Schedule II of Workmen's Compensation Act and that clause is quoted I above and that he is a workman. The enquiry as held by the Postal" Department was inadequate, and invalid. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the Labour Court and hereby allow the appeal and order that the appellant be re-instated forthwith.

7. As regards the back benefits, I am reluctant to give him the back benefits as I feel he might have been employed somewhere, else during his non-employment period. The intervening period may be treated as leave without pay.

A. E. Appeal allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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