HAFIZ ABDUL REHMAN ANSARI (CHAIRMAN).--- I intend to decide both the above captioned revision petitions through this consolidated judgment/order being related to identical facts and law. Both the instant revision petitions are filed against interim orders dated 16-11-2011 passed by Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,11, D.G. Khan. The main grievance petitions are still to be finally decided by Punjab Labour Court No,11, D.. G. Khan.
2. Brief facts of the instant case are that MRs, Firdous Fatima and MRs, Bushra Farasat petitioners filed separate grievance petitions under section 33 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 before the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,11, D.G. Khan contending that they were appointed as teachers in Sardar Kauray Khan Model School Muzaffargarh vide order dated 26-12- 1984 and 25-10-1983 respectively by the Chairman Zila Council, Muzaffargarh against permanent posts. The petitioners were workwomen and doing manual duties just like clerk. The School was established in 1983 and was run by Zila Council, Muzaffargarh. It was an attached department of provincial Government/Zila Council thereafter it was illegally made as autonomous body and its management was transferred to. Governing Body through an arbitrary and illegal resolution by the then Chairman with counsel. The service record of the petitioners during entire service period remained unblemished and no complaint of any sort or explanation was ever served upon them, that all of a sudden the Principal, Government Postgraduate College, Muzaffargarh was appointed as Chairman Enquiry Committee, who served charge-sheet dated 27-11-2006 along with statement of allegations upon the petitioners under PRSO, 2000. The petitioners submitted their defence reply refuting, the allegations levelled against them that proceedings initiated against the petitioners were devoid of any valid and sustainable basis and penalty awarded to petitioners was not, based on any, lawful footing. While all the allegations except one levelled against petitioners were based on generalized statements without any specific instance e.g. Defiance of authority, late coming and trouble making etc, enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Committee the report of which is based on no evidence at all, which has of no legal value. Besides this neither any personal hearing was given to the petitioners by the Board of Governors, nor Board issued any show cause notice to them, hence termination orders dated 27-6-2007 is biased illegal and liable to be set- aside.
3. The respondent in the grievance petitions submitted miscellaneous application under Order VII, Rule 11 for dismissal of grievance petition contending that the petitioners are school teachers and they do not come in the definition of workers or workwomen as defined in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and section 2(xxxi) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, that both the petitions are not maintainable as the petitioners do not possess the status of workwomen being school teachers as observed by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore reported as 1987 PLC (C.S.) 497, that Sardar Kauray Khan Higher Secondary School is an institution, which depends upon "No Profit and No Loss" policy that both the petitions are barred by time and that Punjab Labour Court No,1,1, D.G. Khan had no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The present respondent filed written statement of application filed by the appellant for the dismissal of grievance petitions denying the contention of application filed by the appellant.
4.The learned Presiding Officer dismissed this application vide impugned order dated 16-11-2011. In the light of grievance petition and written statement it transpired that factual controversy is involved. Sometime the employees who are also officers are assigned by the B employer some clerical duties. After recording of the evidence, the Presiding Officer labour court can conclude whether the respondent teachers were performing the duties of teaching only or the Principal had assigned to the respondents teachers any manual work as alleged by the respondents in the grievance petition. It is established law while deciding application under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C.
Only the plaint can be C considered whether the, respondents/petitioners have any cause of action or not. No other material can be seen at this stage. Petitioners have categorically asserted in the grievance petition doing of manual work in the school. Without recording the evidence, it cannot be presumed that the respondent was only teaching the students. The learned Presiding Officer rightly dismissed the miscellaneous applications filed for dismissal of grievance petition. I see no force in the instant revision petition, which is dismissed. Record of the lower court be sent back to Punjab Labour Court No,11, D.G. Khan, where grievance petition will proceed in accordance with law. No order as to costs.