Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑89 of 1983, decided on 8th October, 1985.

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Weat Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 0.1 (4)‑‑Pakistan Railways Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.5‑‑Electrician‑ Applicability of Standing Orders‑‑Although electrician employed Railway Department is workman, yet it is doubtful whether Ordinance VI of 1968 would be applicable to such employee because Railway Department is governed by Pakistan Railway (Efficiency and Discipline Rules which are not statutory Rules having been not approved b Federal Government‑‑Question relating to applicability of Act VI of 1968 was left undecided by Labour Appellate Tribunal.

‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Pakistan Railways Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R. 5‑‑Railway employee‑‑Absence without leave for more than one year‑‑ Services terminated after due enquiry‑‑No grievance notice under S. 25‑A of Ordinance XXIII by terminated employee‑‑Appeal, held, would not be against termination in absence of grievance notice.

Muhammad Yousuf Khan for Appellant.

Ch. Rashid 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 Order Ordinance, 1968 would be applicable. Railway Department has the Rules known as Pakistan Railway Efficiency & 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 no 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.A.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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