Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petitions Nos. S-90, 91 and 92 of 1985, decided on 31st May, 1987.

---S. 25-A--Legislative history of S.25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, traced and illustrated.

--Ss.2 (XXVIII) & 25-A--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.0.12- 'Workman', definition of--Scope of S.25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance to grant relief to workmen against employer--Extent of relief--Effect of deletion of subsection (6) from S.25-A--"Workman", held, would include within its ambit only such persons who were employed in an industry for hire or reward, barring those who for purposes of any proceedings under Industrial Relations Ordinance, in relation to industrial dispute have been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or in consequence of such dispute--Section 25-A(4) providing that where application was brought before Labour Court would be disposed of as if same related to industrial dispute, would, however, relate to powers and procedure of Labour Court and same could neither enlarge definition of 'workman' as given in Ordinance XXIII of 1969 nor convert such application into industrial dispute--After deletion of subsection (6) from S.25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, only such persons could approach Labour Court in respect of their removal, dismissal etc. from service who fell within ambit of definition of "workman" in Ordinance VI of 1968--Where however, by virtue of any law, provisions of Ordinance VI of 1968, did not apply to an employee, application filed by him before Labour Court would be incompetent.

P.L. Mayakar and another v. Amichand Narayan and others AIR 1956 Bom. 30; Pakistan Railways v. Junior. Labour Court No.5 and others 1979 P L C 320; Messrs Johnson & Johnson (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Zubair Ahmad 1980 P L C 622; Abdus Salam Khan v. Pakistan Railways 1984 P L C 572; N.B.P. etc. v. P.L.A.I. etc. N L R 1985 Labour 62; Laka Khan v. Punjab Road Transport Board 1984 P L C 56; Jamil Ahmed and another v. Punjab Road Transport Board, Multan 1984 P L C 420 ref.

---S.22--Karachi Port Trust Officers and Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1969, R.6-A--West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.1 (4)----Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Provisions of Ordinance VI of 1968 whether applicable to employees of Karachi Port Trust--Karachi Port Trust being carried on by and under authority of Federal Government and employees thereof governed by Karachi Port Trust Officers and Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1969, held, were excluded from ambit of Ordinance VI of 1968--Labour Court had fallen into error by assuming jurisdiction in cases filed by employees thereof--Order passed by Labour Court in respect of employees governed by statutory rules being illegal and without lawful authority was set aside by High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction.

Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Abdul Ghani 1973 S C M R 769 ref.

Muhammad Sharif for Petitioners. Ali Amjad for Respondent.

Dates of hearing: 8th, 11th, 15^thDecember, 1986 and 16^thFebruary, 1987.

The respondent No.l in these petitions is a person who was employed by the petitioners as a workman and whose services had been terminated by .them. Each of the respondents filed a grievance application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Ordinance") before the learned Labour Court. An objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners that the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court to hear the respondent's application was barred as the respondent had ceased to be a "worker" or "workman" under the Ordinance and the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter referred as to "the Standing Orders Ordinance") were also not applicable to him as the employees of the petitioners were admittedly governed by statutory rules of service conduct and discipline and the establishment of the petitioners was being run by and under the authority of the Federal Government having been established under the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886. It may be pointed out that by virtue of the proviso to section 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance the provisions of the Ordinance are not applicable to such person. However, the objection was overruled by the learned Labour Court, which held that the same had jurisdiction in the matter as the respondent could approach the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Ordinance and the provisions thereof did not stand ousted by the rules framed by the petitioners.

2. Mr. Muhammad Sharif, learned counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions while referring to the definition of "worker" in the Ordinance, has argued that a person whose services have been terminated by the employer ceases to be a "worker" under the Ordinance. Consequently, he can only approach the Labour Court b3 grievance petition of the respondent, under section 25-A , I . R .O. 1 1969.

7. For the reasons, stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The appeal is dismissed accordingly. The respondent workman, namely, C Muhammad Kamil Arzani, is directed to be reinstated in service of the appellants establishment with full back benefits forthwith.

M.Y.H./935/Lb.S. 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.