West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 Section 2 (g) orary temporary worker nine After the completion of nine months, whether in the case of an employee employed in a job, the status of a temporary worker engaged in any establishment. From there, there was no requirement that at the end of the nine-month period, the employer was responsible for issuing an appointment letter stating that such worker had been terminated in such an appointment letter. The issuance of the Code does not constitute a violation of any standing order of Ordinance VI of 1968.
1987 P L C 860
[Karachi
High Court]
Before Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, J
GOVERNMENT OF SIND
and others
Versus
Messrs HOECHST (PAKISTAN) Ltd. and others Constitutional Petition No. 38 of 1987, decided on 17th March, 1987.
(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S.O.6‑‑Violation of Standing Order, prosecution for‑‑Require ment‑‑Prosecution in case of violation of any Standing Order, held, could not commence except with previous permission in writing owe Inspector or by the Inspector himself, appointed under S.O.6 of Ordinance VI of 1968.
(b) West Pakistan
Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.2(g)‑‑"Temporary worker" after completion of nine months' service whether entitled to appointment letter from employer‑‑In case of temporary worker engaged in an establishment, there was, held, no requirement, that upon completion of period of nine months, employer was under obligation to issue appointment letter showing that such worker had been made permanent‑‑Non‑issuance of such appointment letter would not amount to violation of any Standing Order of Ordinance VI of 1968.
(c) Constitution of Pakistan
(1973) ‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.0.6.‑‑Constitutional petition against order passed on 9‑3‑1986‑‑Constitutional petition presented in Court on 1‑3‑1987‑‑Delay in presenting constitutional petition explained by petitioner in affidavit but being hardly sufficient to cover laches in Court, resulted in dismissal of . such .petition ,by High Court summarily.
ORDER This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 9‑3‑1986 of 9th Sind Labour Court at Karachi, passed on a complaint made to the Court by Inspector of Factories (East Division) Karachi. The learned Labour Court took the view that the complaint made by the Inspector was not competent as he was not authorised to make the complaint regarding violation of Standing Order No.2(g)(i)(4) of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the learned Sind Labour Court holding that the complaint was incompetent is not correct as under Standing Order No.6 the petitioner No.2 was fully competent to file such a complaint. A reading of Standing Orders Nos.6 and 7 will show that no prosecution for an offence punishable under the Ordinance can be instituted except by the Inspector or with the previous permission in writing of the Inspector. The Inspector is defined in Standing Order No.6 as Inspector of Mines appointed under section 4 of the Mines Act, 1943, the Inspectors appointed under section 10 of the Factories Act and such other person as may be appointed Inspector for the purpose of this Ordinance by the Government within the local limits assigned to them. Subsection (2) of Standing Order No.6 provides that an Inspector so appointed under subsection (1) may at all reasonable times enter upon any premises and may examine any register of document relating to maintenance and enforcement of the Standing Order and take on the spot such evidence of any person as may be deemed necessary for the purpose of this Ordinance. In view of the powers conferred under Standing Order No.6 coupled with the fact that the prosecution in case of violation of any Standing Order cannot commence except with the previous permission in writing of the Inspector or by the Inspector himself, it is quite clear that any violation of the Standing Order can be reported and prosecution in respect thereof can be lodged by an Inspector appointed under Standing Order No.6 of the Standing Orders. The learned counsel, therefore, is justified in complaining that the order of the learned Labour Court holding that the prosecution commenced by a complaint by petitioner No.2 was not competent is not correct. However, on facts the learned counsel is unable to point out any violation on the part of respondent No.l and as such the Labour Court rightly reached the conclusion that there was no violation of any Standing Order contained in the Standing Orders Ordinance. The learned counsel in order to establish violation of Standing Order referred to section 2(g)(i)(4) of the Standing Order contained in the Schedule but this section only‑ defined a "temporary worker" engaged in an establishment. It may be mentioned here that under section 2(g) not only "temporary workman" is defined but there are also definitions of a permanent worker. Badli Worker and apprentices. In the above definition of temporary worker, there is no requirement that upon completion of a period of 9 months an employer is under any obligation to issue appointment letter showing that the worker has been made permanent and as such if upon completion of 9 months of service the respondent No.l did not issue any such letter to any worker it could not amount to violation of any Standing Order of the Ordinance. It may also be mentioned here that the impugned order in the case was passed on 9‑3‑1986 while the petition has been presented in this Court on 1‑3‑1987, the delay of about 12 months in presenting the petition has been explained in an affidavit filed by petitioner No.2 on 14‑3‑1987, but the explanation offered is hardly sufficient to cover the laches in the case. For the aforesaid reasons the petition is dismissed summarily.
A. A. /G‑31 / K
Petition dismissed.
