The petitioners were working as Assistants in the Badami Bagh Works of Pakistan Engineering Company Limited one of the taken over industries, when they were charged with misconduct. The allegations against them were that they had gheraod Mr. Sikandar Hussain Khan, Assistant Manager Shipping in his office from 8.30 a. m. To 10 a. m. On 17th June, 1979. An inquiry was conducted and they were found guilty of the charges against them and were dismissed from service. The petitioners after moving a grievance notice went to the Labour Court Ch. Bashir Ahmad. The learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. II vide his order dated 18th April. 1981, after considering the case came to the conclusion that even though the charge was proved against the petitioners, the dismissal order was passed by an authority which seas not competent.
The Labour Court directed the re-instatement of the petitioners but refused to grant them any benefits for past service on account of the misbehaviour of the petitioners with the Assistant Manager. The petitioners filed appeals against this order before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and so did their employers, The petitioners claimed back benefits and their employers questioned the orders of the Labour Court regarding reinstatement of the petitioners. The Labour Appellate Tribunal vide its judgment dated 3rd September, 1981 accepted the appeals moved by the Management and dismissed the appeals of the petitioners. The present writ petition challenges the orders of the Labour Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the dismissal of the petitioners by the General Manager, Administration and Industrial Relations Headquarters Office was without lawful authority as the employer with regard to the petitioners was General Manager Badami Bagh Works only.
2. The learned counsel for the respondent has objected to the main--tainability of the writ petition on the ground that the orders passed by a competent Tribunal cannot be questioned in writ petition unless the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is challenged. There is force in this argument. The jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal cannot be challenged, as the petitioners themselves invoked tare jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal when they went against the orders of the Labour Court with regard to the bay k benefits. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar tend others (PLD194SC139) is attracted to the present case in which it has been held that erroneous decision on question of fact or even of law cannot be challenged in a writ petition when the orders have been passed by Tribunals of competent jurisdiction. In the present case the Labour Court had allowed the petition on the technical ground only view the competence of the authority which passed the dismissal orders, The appellate Tribunal on this very point came contrary conclusion and held that the orders have been passed by competent authority. This question by itself is not open to challenged in writ petition in view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above.
3. On merits it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the General Manager Headquarters Office cannot be covered by the definition of employer given in section 2
(c) of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance 1968. He has stated that the appoint--ing authority of the petitioners being the General Manager Badami Bagh Works, he alone was the competent authority to pass orders of dismissal in respect of the petitioners.
4. The respondent has produced record to show that the petitioners' case has been handled by the Assistant Manager Personnel, Manager Administration Badami Bagh, General Manager, General Manager (Administration) Headquarters Office and even the Managing Director of the Company.
He has contended that each one of them was responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment and was, therefore, covered by the definition of an employer.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that there can be a single employer in respect of a worker. I am afraid, I do not find any force in this argument because this depends on the organization of a particular company. The concept of the appointing authority and the dismissal authority which generally applies to the cases of civil servants is not attracted to the laws relating to labour relations. In the case of labour laws an employer can be an owner, or, a manager mentioned in section 9 of the Factories Act, or an authority appointed by the Government, in this regard, in case of industrial establishment under the control of the Government, or any person responsible to the owner for the supervision and control of such establishment. In the complex organization of public limited companies, particularly those who hay large establishments it is not possible to confine the role of supervision and management to a single individual. It can be a whole hierarchy management, and in some cases, a board rather than an individual who will be the employers in terms of section 2 (c), of the Standing Orders Ordi--nance. It cannot, therefore be held that the General Manager (Adminis--tration and Industrial Relations) Headquarters was not the petitioners' employer. It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents after reading Annexure `D' to the Writ Petition that the peti--tioners had objected to the impartiality of the General Manager, Badami Bagh Works and now that the orders had been passed by the Headquarters Office it does not lies in the mouth of the petitioners that the orders should have been passed by the General Manager Badami Bagh Works.
6. In view of the above considerations there is no force in this writ petition. It is dismissed with costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.