' The Respondent, Altaf Ahmed Qureshi, retired from service in PTCL as an Assistant Accounts Officer in the year 1995. His grievance is that one pre-mature annual increment, due to him with effect from 01.07.1983, was not granted to him with the result that not only was he deprived of the annual increment till his retirement but his pension was also accordingly reduced. However, record does not show that the Respondent agitated this grievance during his service in PTCL as well as for a long period after his retirement from service on 31.12.1995. Through the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment dated 19.12.2000, another PTCL employee, Iftikhar-ud-Din, was found entitled to receive the annual increment in question. On 08.10.2002, the Respondent filed before the FST a service appeal wherein he claimed he was entitled to the benefit of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 19.12.2000 as his case was at par with that of Iftikhar-ud-Din. However, his service appeal was declared abated in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the Mubeen-us-lslam case (PLD 2006 Supreme Court 602). Thereafter, the Respondent on 30.09.2006 filed a grievance petition under Section 46 of the IRO, 2002. His grievance petition has been accepted by the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, vide its judgment dated on 08.01.2013 which has been impugned by the PTCL through this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the PTCL has emphasized that the learned Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the Respondent's grievance petition for recovery of increment and retirement dues as the petitioner, being a retired employee, does not fall within the definition of a workman given in Section 2(xxx) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 or that given in Section 2(i) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. In response, the learned counsel for the Respondent made no serious attempt to counter the argument that the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter but pleaded that the Respondent should be allowed to approach the competent forum now.
3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in this appeal, reference may be made to Section 46 of the IRO, 2002, which allows a workman to invoke the jurisdiction of a Labour Court where his grievance is not redressed by the employer. However, such jurisdiction can be invoked only if the aggrieved person is a workman as defined by Section 2(xxx) of the IRO, 2002, which is reproduced is hereunder:- "Worker" and "workman" means any and all persons not falling within the definition of employer who is employed in an establishment or industry for remuneration or reward either directly or through a contractor, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceedings 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".
4. The aforesaid definition of a workman refers only to a serving workman or a workman whose services have been terminated in connection with or in consequence of an industrial dispute. In view thereof, a former employee is not regarded as a workman under Section 2(xxx) of the IRO, 2002, unless his services have been terminated in connection with or in consequence of an industrial dispute. This legal position is supported by a number of judgments including Mustekhum Cement Limited versus Abdul Rashid and others (1998 SCMR 664) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under: "Therefore, although a person, who has been dismissed, discharged etc. In connection with or in consequence of an industrial dispute can seek redress of his individual grievance in respect of a right guaranteed to him, as provided in Section 25-A of the Ordinance, but such right would not be available to a person who has dismissed, discharged, or removed from service otherwise than in connection with or as a consequence of an industrial dispute."
5. In the sent case, the Respondent's services were not terminated in connection with or in consequence of an industrial dispute but he retired from service upon reaching the age of superannuation. As such, being not a workman in terms of Section 2(xxx) of the IRO, 2002, the Respondent could not invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court under Section 46 of IRO, 2002. Nor could the Respondent invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Standing Order 12(3) which is available only when the services of a workman are illegally terminated. Since the Respondent is not a workman in terms of Section 2(xxx) of the IRO, 2002, it follows that the learned Labour Court was not at all invested with the jurisdiction to pass the impugned order.
6. For what has been stated above, the impugned order, being without jurisdiction, is set aside with the result that the Respondent's grievance petition stands dismissed provided that the Respondent shall be free to approach the competent forum as may be available under the law.