Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 4257 of 1985, decided on 12th May, 1986.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1974), S. 2(1)(b)‑ Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Findings of fact about status of employee‑ Effect‑‑Findings of fact recorded by Labour Court not controverted at appellate stage before Labour Appellate Tribunal‑‑Such findings of fact arrived at on basis of evidence produced by parties, held, could not be questioned, challenged before High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.

‑‑‑S. 2(xiv)‑‑Industry‑‑Term 'industry', definition of‑‑Rule of ejusdem generis, held, could not be applied while interpreting words 'calling', 'service', 'employment' or 'occupation' used in definition of "industry".

K.G. Old, Principal, Christian Training Centre, Gujranwala v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone and others 1976 P L C 675: Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Rajappa and others (1978) I L L 349 ref.

EOBI Employees Federation v. Employees Old‑Age, Benefits Institution 1985 P L C 891 rel.

(c) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)---

‑‑‑S. 1(4), Proviso‑‑West Pakistan Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 1968‑‑Punjah Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975‑‑Constitutibn of Pakistan (1973), Art. 241‑ Applicability of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 to Sub‑Engineers employed in Provincial Government Irrigation Department‑‑In case of Sub‑Engineers not covered by definition of workman under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, West Pakistan Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineering Services Rules, 1968 were saved under S. 23(2) of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 and in case of Sub‑Engineers falling within category of workmen 1968 Rules, remained in force by virtue of Art. 241 of Constitution of Pakistan, 1973‑‑View that proviso to S. 1(4) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable because no specific Efficiency and Discipline Rules had been framed by Irrigation and Power Department for Sub‑Engineers falling within category of workmen, repelled‑‑Held: (1) Existence of statutory rules of service referred to in first proviso to, S. 1(4) of the Ordinance being sufficient, absence of separate discipline rules applicable to such persons would not take them out from purview of first proviso to S. 1(4). (ii) There being no legal bar to application of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 to Government servants falling within category of workmen such rules can be applied to Sub -Engineers‑‑In absence of separate efficiency and discipline rules for Sub‑Engineers, application of Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 to such employees would not be open to objection‑‑Provisions of Ordinance VI of 1968 were not applicable and case of Sub‑Engineers of Irrigation and Power Department was covered by proviso to S. 1(4) of the Ordinance.

(d) West Pakistan Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineering Services Rules, 1968--

‑‑‑R. 6(2)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A‑‑ Sub‑Engineer of Irrigation Department‑‑Appointment on regular basis could be made only on recommendations of Selection Board‑‑ Temporary appointment made without such recommendations‑‑Effect‑‑Termination of such temporary appointment, having contravened no provisions rules same was not violative of any right guaranteed by law so as to attract provisions of S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

Abdul Majid Sheikh v. Mushaffe Ahmed and another PLD 1965 SC 208; Muhammad Azhar v. Commissioner of Karachi and another P.L.D 1966 S C 273 held not relevant.

‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxiv) & 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Settlement‑‑Term Settlement specifically defined in S. 2(xxiv) of Ordinance, 1969, would mean "Settlement arrived at in course of conciliation proceedings"‑‑Letter of appointment, held, could not be treated as "settlement" for purpose of grievance petition under S. 25‑A.

Ata Muhammad Raja v. Duncan Stratton & Co. Ltd. 1976 P . C 643 rel.

‑‑‑Ss. 2(xiii), 2 (xxviii) & 25‑A‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Competency of‑‑Workman to whom provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 not applicable, held, could not seek remedy of grievance petition unless covered by deft on of "worker or workman" in S.2 (xxviii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑‑Workman falling within definition of workman under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, dismissed or removed from service not in relation to "industrial dispute" as defined in S. 2(xiii) of Ordinance, 1969 or where such dismissal or removal could not lead to industrial dispute, would not be competent to file grievance petition against termination of service.

National Bank of Pakistan Gujranwala etc. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal etc. 1985 Law Notes Lah. 655 rel.

Rashid Aziz, Advocate‑General with M.M. Saeed Beg for Petitioners.

Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Respondent No. 2.

Nemo for Respondent No. 1.

Date of hearing: 18th March, 1986.

Syed Moazzam Ali Shah respondent No. 2 was appointed as Sub‑Engineer in the Lahore Irrigation Administration against a leave vacancy by the Chief Engineer Irrigation, Lahore on 4‑11‑1981. The aforementioned post was in National Pay Scale No. 11 with initial pay of Rs.430. The West Pakistan Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, regulated the recruitment to the Provincial Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineering Service. Under Rule 6(2), appointment to the cadre posts in the service carrying an initial salary of Rs.215 per mensem could be made on the recommendation of the Selection Board. As Syed Moazzam Ali Shah's appointment was made in accordance with the aforementioned Rules, he was informed by petitioner No. 1 vide letter, dated 4‑7‑1983 that his appointment could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason unless he competed for the regular posts of Sub‑Engineer. Respondent No. 2 claimed that since the period of leave vacancy had not been mentioned in the order of his appointment, he could be considered for the regular post of Sub‑Engineer as he had already put in two years' service as such. On 31‑5‑1984, petitioner No. 1 terminated the appointment of respondent No. 2 vide Office Order No. Admn 11/84/15676/2666/55: Syed Moazzam Ali Shah respondent challenged the termination order by submitting a grievance petition in the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (Act XXIII1969). He contended that termination order was illegal and without lawful authority as it contained no explicit reason for termination of his appointed and thus contravened the mandatory provisions of Standing Order 12(3) contained in the Schedule to tire West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (West Pakistan Ordinance No. VI of 1968). He also assailed the termination order on the ground that being a permanent Sub‑Engineer, he could not be removed from service as the Superintending Engineer, Link Circle, under whom he was working., had, informed petitioner No. 1 that his services were required by him. According to respondent No. 2, the termination order was bad also for the reason that petitioner No. 2, was not legally competent to pass the said order.

2. The petitioners, who were impleaded as respondents in the petition filed by respondent No 2 in the Labour Court, contested the petition inter alia on the grounds that respondent No. 2 was not a workman and as such was not entitled to seek any relief from the Labour Court; that provisions of the Standing Order, relied upon by respondent No. 2, were not attracted, as West Pakistan Ordinance No. VI of 1968 did not apply to respondent No. 2 ,4n ,view of the first proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the Ordinance as statutory rules of service framed by the Provincial Government were applicable to respondent No. 2; and that his appointment was validly terminated in terms of the conditions of his appointment inasmuch as his appointment being purely temporary against a leave vacancy could be terminated at any time without assigning any reason.

3. The learned Labour Court, after recording evidence of the parties and considering the submissions made by their counsel, came to the conclusion that respondent No. 2 was not a civil servant as he was a workman as defined in section 2(1)(n) read with clauses (viii) and (x) of Schedule II of the workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Act No. VIII of 1923). It was, however, here by the Court that in the presence of the West Pakistan Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 1.968, which are statutory rules for the purpose of first proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) were not applicable to the case of respondent No. 2. It was further held that respondent No. 2 was not entitled to any relief under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, even if he was to be considered as workman under the said Ordinance because he had failed to show that the impugned termination order had violated his any right guaranteed under any law, award and settlement. Consequently the petition of respondent No. 2 dismissed by the learned Labour Court vide order, dated 20‑4‑1985. The above order was challenged by respondent No. 2 before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal Lahore, respondent No. 1. His contention that his case was not covered by the first proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the West Pakistan Ordinance No. VI of 1968 because no Efficiency and Discipline Rules had been framed by the Irrigation Department and the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, had not been adopted by the Department for application to the Subordinate Engineering Service, was upheld by respondent No. 1 and his grievance petition under section 25‑A of Ordinance No. XXIII of 1969 was accepted on 17‑7‑1985 inter alia on the ground that his appointment could not be terminated in view of the recommendation of his incharge that his services were required by him and further that there was no rule or statutory provision to the effect that temporary appointment could not be made against a permanent post and that he had not been replaced by a person duly appointed as Sub‑Engineer. It was also observed that the order of termination violated the rights of respondent No. 2 guaranteed by the West Pakistan Ordinance No. VI of 1968. The petitioners were directed to re‑instate respondent No. 2 in service as Sub‑Engineer. Back benefits were however, not allowed to him.

4. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging order, dated 17‑7‑1985 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore respondent No. 1. It is contended that existence of the West Pakistan Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineer Service, Rules, 1968, alone was sufficient to bring the case of respondent No. 2 within the ambit of the 1st proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of West Pakistan Ordinance No. VI of 1968 and that it was not necessary that in addition to the aforementioned rules separate efficiency and discipline rules should have been framed for the Sub‑Engineers of the Irrigation Department because the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 were applicable to them. According to the petitioners respondent No. 2 was not a workman for the purposes of West Pakistan Ordinance No. VI of 1968. He was not entitled to any relief under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, because he was not covered even by the definition of workman as given in section 2 (xxviii) of the said Ordinance. The petitioners have also questioned the legality of appointment order of respondent No. 2 on the ground that under Rule 5 of the West Pakistan Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 1968, the Superintending Engineer is the appointing authority of Sub‑Engineers whereas the appointment of respondent No. 2 was made by the Chief Engineer. Respondent No. 2 has contested the writ petition and filed written statement controverting the allegations made by the petitioners.

5. Alongwith this writ petition, some other writ petitions (Writ Petitions Nos. 3909, 3910, 4028, 4030, 4031, 4033 and 4034 of 1985) were also heard by us as it was stated that the question whether the petitioners in the aforementioned writ petitions, who were also Sub Engineers of the Irrigation Department, were workmen, as claimed by them, was common in all the writ petitions. There is no doubt that one of the questions requiring determination in these writ petitions is whether Sub‑Engineers are workmen and as such are entitled to the protection available under the Labour Laws. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, we think that the other writ petitions should be disposed of through a separate order because even for the decision of the common question involved in all the writ petitions, it would be necessary to refer to the facts of the present case which are not identical with those stated in the other writ petitions.

6. The first contention of the petitioners is that respondent No. 2 was a civil servant and not a workman and as such was not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25‑A of Ordinance No. XXIII of 1969. According to the definition of "civil servant" as given in section 2(1)(b) of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974 (Act No. VIII of 1974), "civil servants" means a person who is a member of a civil service of the Province or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Province, but does not include a person who is on deputation to the Province from the Federation or any other Province or authority or who is employed on contract, or on work‑charged basis, or who is paid from contingencies or who is a worker or workman as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 (XXV of 1934) or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (Act No. VIII of 1923). Respondent No. 2 can be considered as civil servant if he does not fall in the category of persons excluded from the definition of civil servant. According to respondent No. 2, he is covered by the definition of workman as given in the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. His status as civil servant was challenged by the petitioners before the Labour Court and on the basis of evidence produced before the Court, it was found that respondent No. 2 was a workman as defined in section 2(1)(n) read with clauses (viii) and (ix) of Schedule II of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. The above finding of fact was not controverted by the petitioners at the time of hearing of appeal filed by respondent No. 2 against the decision of the Labour Court. The petitioners cannot be allowed to question the above finding of fact, which, as noticed above, was arrived at on the basis of evidence produced by the parties, at this stage, when the matter has come up before this Court in the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction. For the purpose of Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, respondent No. 2 is a workman and his status as such cannot be assailed by the petitioners. The matter, however, does not end here because the next question which needs consideration is whether respondent No. 2 could invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court in the matter of termination of his service by filing a petition under section 25‑A of Ordinance No. XXIII of 1969. In this connection, it is necessary to consider the definition of worker and workman given in section 2(xxviii) of Ordinance No. XXIII of 1969, because in case it is found that respondent No. 2 is covered by the aforementioned definition, it would be legally possible for him to file petition under section 25‑A of the Ordinance which provides that a worker may seek redress of his grievance in certain cases from a Labour Court. The definition of "workman" is reproduced as under: ‑

"'Worker' and 'workman' means any person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed (including employment as a supervisor or as an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial dispute includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid‑off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay‑off, or removal has led to that dispute but does not include any person---

(a) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or

(b) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding rupees eight hundred per mensem or performs, either because of the nature of duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of managerial nature."

7. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that respondent No. 2 was not employed in an establishment or industry within the meaning of the aforementioned provision because the term "industry" according to section 2(xiv) of the Ordinance means any business, trade, manufacture, calling, service, employment or occupation. Respondent No. 2 was employed as Sub‑Engineer in the Irrigation Department where his employment was not for the purpose of carrying on any industry. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the words "calling, service, employment or occupation" used in the definition of the term "industry" are not to be interpreted to their ordinary dictionary, meanings but have to be considered in relation to the words "business, trade and manufacture" mentioned in the definition by applying the rule of interpretation of ejusdem generis. Reference in this connection was made to the decision of this Court in K.G. Old Principal Christian Training Centre, Gujranwala v. Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court Northern Zone and others 1976 P L C 675. In this case reliance was placed on the decisions from foreign jurisdiction particularly the decisions of the Indian Supreme Court. The various tests laid down in the Indian cases were, however, reviewed subsequently by a special and larger Bench of the Supreme Court in Bangalore‑Water Supply and Sewerage Board v. Rajappa and others 1978 I L L 349. Tests laid down in that earlier case were not followed and the restricted interpretation of the terms "business" or "trade" was not accepted. The definition of the term industry has been considered in a case recently decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission in EOBI Employees Federation v. Employees Old Age Benefits Institution 1985 P L C 891. Following the test laid down by the Supreme Court in the Bangalore case, term "service" was given extensive meaning and its definition given in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary page 1590 as including "the action of serving, helping, benefiting , tending to the welfare or advantage of another" was relied upon. We also share the view expressed in the aforementioned case. The rule of ejusdem generis cannot be applied while interpreting the words "service, employment or occupation" used in the definition of "industry". It may also be pointed out there is nothing on the record to show the nature of duties performed by respondent No. 2 while employed as Sub‑Engineer. In the absence of any such evidence, it is not proper to hold that respondent No. 2 was not employed in an establishment as defined in section 2(ix) of Ordinance No. XXIII of 1969.

8. The next point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners is that even if it be assumed that respondent No. 2 was a worker as defined in Ordinance XXIII of 1969 when his appointment was terminated, he was not entitled to file petition under section 25‑A of the aforementioned Ordinance for two reasons. Firstly, there was no violation of his any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement and secondly, after the termination of his appointment he had ceased to be a worker and as such could not seek redress of his grievance from the Labour Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the Standing Order 12(3) which provides that services of workman shall not be terminated nor shall a workman to be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken on which reliance has been placed by respondent No. 2, is not applicable because the West Pakistan Ordinance No. VI of 1968 does not apply to respondent No. 2 in view of 1st proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the Ordinance which provides that nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to industrial and commercial establishments carried on by or under the authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government, where statutory rules of service conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein. According to the learned counsel, there are statutory rules of service which regulate the appointment of Sub‑Engineer in the Irrigation Department known as the West Pakistan Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 1968 and as such in the presence of these rules, the provisions of West Pakistan Ordinance No. VI of 1968 are not applicable to Sub- Engineers, learned counsel has further stated that the mere fact that no specific efficiency and discipline rules have been framed for Sub- Engineers, who fall in the category of workmen, does not take out the case from within the purview of the 1st proviso referred to above because the existence of statutory rules alone is sufficient to attract the application of the first proviso. The view taken by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal that since no specific efficiency and discipline rules have been framed by the Irrigation Department for Sub‑Engineers first proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of West Pakistan Ordinance No. VI of 1968 is not applicable, is not based on proper appreciation of legal position before examining the issue regarding applicability of the first proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of West Pakistan Ordinance No. VI of 1968 to the Sub‑Engineers employed in the Irrigation Department, it is necessary to consider the legal position of the West Pakistan Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 1968. These rules were framed by the Governor of West Pakistan in exercise of powers conferred on him by Articles 178 and 179 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1962 and were notified on 15‑4‑1968 vide Notification No. S.O. XVIII‑1‑32/59. Under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the aforementioned rules were saved by Article 241 which provides that until the appropriate Legislature C makes a law under Article 240, all rules and orders in force immediately before the commencing day shall so far as consistent with the provisions of the Constitution, continue in force. On the promulgation of the Punjab Civil Servants Ordinance, 1974, which was replaced by the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, the West Pakistan Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 1968, were saved under section 23 (2) of the aforementioned Act in so far as their application to the Sub‑Engineers, not covered by the definition of workman under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, is concerned. In the case of Sub- Engineers, who fall in the category of workmen, the aforementioned rules remain in force by virtue of Article 241 of the Constitution.

10. The first proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of West Pakistan Ordinance No. VI of 1969 is reproduced below:

Provided that nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to industrial and commercial establishments carried on by or under the authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government, where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein.

It may be noticed that for the application of the aforementioned provisions the existence of statutory rules of service in the industrial and commercial establishment referred to therein is sufficient. We agree with the learned counsel for the petitioners that the absence of separate discipline rules applicable to such persons would not take out their case from within the purview of the first proviso. The Punjab Civil D Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, which are primarily applicable to civil servants, can be applied. to Sub‑Engineers who are not civil servants because there is no legal bar to the application of these rules to persons who were workman but at the same time are Government servants. It may be noticed that condition No. 6 of the letter of appointment dated 4‑11‑1981 (Annexure 'A') sent to respondent No.2 provides:

You will be governed by such rules and orders relating to leave, travelling allowance, medical attendance, pay etc as may be issued by the Government for the category of Government servants to which you belong.

If the rules referred to in the above paragraph are applicable to the Sub‑Engineers who are not civil servants there can be hardly E any objection to the application of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975 to them particularly when no separate efficiency and discipline rules have been framed by the Government for them.

11. For seeking relief under section 25‑A, it was necessary for respondent No. 2 to show that the impugned order of termination of his appointment had violated his any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or an award or settlement. As noticed above, the right guaranteed by Standing Order 12 (3) of West Pakistan Ordinance No.VI of 1969 was not violated in the case of respondent No.2 as the provisions of the Ordinance including the Standing Order were not applicable to him. There is also no violation of any other statutory provision. Respondent No.2 was appointed against a leave vacancy and there was a clear stipulation in the order of his appointment F that the appointment was purely temporary and his services could be terminated without any reason being assigned Regular appointment to the post of Sub‑Engineer could be made only on the recommendation of the Selection Board as provided in Rule 6 (2) of the West Pakistan Irrigation Department Subordinate Engineering Service Rules, 1968. Order terminating his appointment, therefore, did not contravene any provision of the aforementioned rules. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that since appointment of respondent No.2 was for an indefinite period and there was no condition in the order of appointment that he had to compete for regular appointment, the order of termination of his appointment was illegal as being in violation of the established principles governing employment of Government servants. He has referred to the case of Abdul Majid Sheikh v. Mushaffe Ahmed and another PLD 1965 S C 208 where it was held that the termination of appointment of person appointed until further orders by issuing fourteen days' notice according to the terms of his employment, but without issuing show‑cause notice to him was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. Similarly termination of service of a temporary employee at fifteen days' notice in terms of his employment was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect as it was found that termination order was based on the ground of misconduct in Muhammad Azhar v. Commissioner of Karachi and another P L D 1966 SC 273. Both the cases, referred to above, are not relevant to the issue under consideration. Respondent No.2 though a Government servant did not enjoy any legal and Constitutional guarantee against his removal from service as was available to Government servants under the Constitutions of 1956 and 1962. As the impugned order of termination was not made in violation of any statutory provision, respondent No.2 was not entitled to seek redress through petition under section 25‑A of Ordinance No. XXIII of 1969.

12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has contended that the order of appointment of respondent No.2 to the post of Sub‑Engineer constitutes a settlement within the meaning of section .25‑A of Ordinance No. XXIII of 1969 and since there was no condition in the said order that respondent No.2 shall have to compete for regular appointment the order of termination of his appointment on the ground of the failure to compete is in violation of the aforementioned settlement. We do not find any substance in the above condition because order of appointment cannot be treated as "settlement" for the purpose of section 25‑A which term has been specifically defined in section 2 (xxiv) to mean "a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceeding, and includes an agreement between an employer and his workmen arrived at otherwise than in the course of any conciliation proceeding, where such agreement is in writing, had been signed by the parties thereto in such manner as may be prescribed and a copy thereof has been sent to the Provincial Government, the conciliator and such other person as may be prescribed." Evidently, the letter of appointment does not fulfil the aforementioned requirements as was held in Ata Muhammad Raja v. Duncan Stratton & Co. Ltd. 1976 P L C 643. Even otherwise, the order of termination of appointment issued in the present case cannot be considered inconsistent with the terms and conditions of service contained in the order of appointment; rather the order of termination of appointment was in conformity with condition No. 1, which provided that the appointment was purely temporary and the services could be terminated without any reason being assigned at any time.

13. The other ground on which the impugned order has been assailed ‑by the petitioners is that in view of the definition of worker and a workman given in section 2 (xxviii) of Ordinance No. XXIII of 1969, a person who has ceased to be a worker or workman cannot seek redress of his grievance under section 25‑A of the Ordinance. In this connection reliance has been placed on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in National Bank of Pakistan Gujranwala etc. v. Punjab Labour

Appellate Tribunal etc. 1985 Law Notes (Lah.) 655. The relevant observations made in the above case are as under:

"In the presence of the clear language of section 2 (xxviii) there is no room for finding a contradictory interpretation. If the Legislature intended to include all the dismissed employees in the category of workers there was nothing preventing it from saying so specifically, rather than leave it to the guess work and calculation of the lawyers. The Indian Legislature made their intention known by adding section 2‑A a deeming clause, to treat dismissal etc. of an individual workman to be an industrial dispute. This does not, however, mean that a dismissed employee has no remedy. He can still seek his remedy, but he can do it only through the Collective Bargaining Agent or through a civil suit."

The term "worker" and "workman" have defined to mean any person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed (including employment as a supervisor or an apprentice) in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceeding under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial dispute includes a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid‑off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay‑off, or removal has led to that dispute but does not include any person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, or who, being employed in a supervisory capacity draws wages exceeding rupees eight hundred per mensem or performs, either because of the nature of duties attached to the office or by reason of the powers vested in him, functions mainly of managerial nature.

14. It is evident from the above definition that a workman, who has been dismissed, discharged or otherwise removed from employment, is not covered by the definition unless it is shown that his dismissal, discharge for removal from employment was in connection with or as a consequence of an industrial dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or removal has led to that industrial dispute. According to section 2(xiii) of Ordinance XXIII of 1969, "industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between the employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which is concerned with the employment or non‑employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person; and is not in respect of the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law, other than this Ordinance, or any award or settlement for the time being in force. According to the above definition, disputes or differences, which are not in respect of the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured by or under any law other than this Ordinance or any award or settlement are excluded from the definition of "industrial dispute" and consequently if any worker or workman is dismissed, discharged or removed in relation to a dispute not covered by the above definition, he is not covered by the definition of worker and workman and as such is not competent to file a petition under section 25‑A. In other words, a worker or workmen, who has been dismissed, discharged or removed in relation to an industrial dispute arising in respect of the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under the Ordinance alone would be included in the definition of worker and workman and as such would be entitled to seek redress of his grievance under section 25‑A of the Ordinance respondent No.2 has not been removed from service in relation to "industrial dispute" as defined in section 2(xiii) of Ordinance No.XXIII of 1969. He is, therefore, not covered by the definition of worker and workman. His 1 petition under section 25‑A of Ordinance No.XXIII of 1969 was not maintainable.

15. It may not be out of place to mention here that a workman, to whom the provisions of West Pakistan Ordinance No.VI of 1968 are applicable, can seek redress under section 25‑A of Ordinance No. XXIII of 1969, even after he has been dismissed, discharged or removed because there is an express provision in clause (3) of Standing Order 12 that in case a workman is aggrieved by the termination of his service or removal, retrenchment, discharge, or dismissal, he may take action in accordance with the provisions of section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and thereupon the provisions of the said section shall apply as they apply to the redress of an individual grievance. But a workman, to whom the provisions of West Pakistan Ordinance No. VI of 1968 are not applicable as in case of respondent No. 2, he cannot challenge the order of his removal, retrenchment or dismissal unless he is included in the definition of worker and workman given in section 2(xxviii) of Ordinance No. XXIII of 1969.

After having examined the various legal aspects of the case, we have come to the conclusion that the petition filed by respondent No.2 in the Labour Court under section 25‑A of Ordinance No. XXIII of 1969 was not legally competent. We accordingly accept the writ petition and declare that the impugned order passed by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal respondent No.l accepting the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 against the decision of the Labour Court is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. As somewhat difficult legal questions were involved in this writ petition, no order is made as to costs.

A. E. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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