' Sajid Ali appellant, who was employed as Senior Skilled Worker in the establishment of the respondent was dismissed from service on 6th July, 1980 after an elaborate enquiry. He filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for setting aside the order of dismissal before the Labour Court at Peshawar which by its order dated 15th July, 1981 dismissed the same as being not maintainable. The. Same has been challenged in appeal before this Tribunal. The Labour Court was of the view that the appellant being an employee of Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Laboratories established by the Federal Government having statutory rules with regard to terms and conditions of service of the employees the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable to the respondent-Council, as such, the petition is not competent.
2. The main grievance of the appellant is that the requirement of show-cause notice and enquiry as envisaged by West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was not complied with. The respondent- establishment known as Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Laboratories originally established as a registered Council under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 continued to function under section 6 read with section 22 of the Pakistan Council of Scientific and industrial Research Act XXX of 1973. Similarly the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research owe its existence to section 3 read with section 22 of Act XXX of 1973. It is not clear as to when the appellant was appointed on the job, but even if he was holding it prior to the coming into force of Act XXX of 1973 under section 22 (1) (b) his service stood transferred to the Council who shall be deemed to have been appointed by the Council. However, in the petition before the Labour Court it has been specifically mentioned that the petitioner was in the employment of the respondent's establishment at Peshawar for the last ten years. Section 4 deals with the composition of the Council while section 6 enumerates the functions of the Council. The Chairman and other members of the Council are appointed by the Federal Government. Its budget is also approved by the Federal Government as provided in section 11 of the Act. Under section 15 the Federal Government can issue directives and orders from time to time which the Council shall have to follow. The regulations of the Council can be framed under section 19 of the Act with the prior permission of the Federal Government.
3. Two-fold argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and pressed strenuously. Firstly, it was contended that the respondent Council is a body corporate constituted under section 3 of the Act ibid and it functions under the authority of an Act of Parliament and not under the authority of the Federal Government. Secondly, that there are no statutory rules of service dealing with the employees framed by the Council which are applicable to the appellant.
On the basis of the above referred two objections it was contended that the first proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable to the case of the appellant who should have been proceeded against under the said Ordinance. As the whole controversy arises out of the interpretation of the first proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 it will be advantageous to reproduce the same :- "Provided that nothing in the 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."
' A number of authorities were cited by the learned counsel for the parties for and against the proposition advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. The first one relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant is a case from English jurisdiction reported as Tomlin v.
Hannajord (1). In this case it was held that the British Transport Commission is not a servant or agent of the Crown and its property is as much subject to the Rent Restrictions Acts as the property of any other person. Further it was observed that when Parliament intends that a new corporation {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) (1949) 2 All E L R 327 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' should act on behalf of the Crown, it as a rule says so expressly, as it did in the case of the Central Land Board by the Town and Company Planning Act, 1947, which was passed on the same day as the Transport Act, 1947. In the absence of any such express provision, the proper inference, in the case, at any rate of a commercial corporation, is that it acts on its own behalf, even though it is control by a Government department. From these observations it is apparent that British Transport Commission was a statutory Commercial Corporation and therefore it was held that it was not a Government department nor its powers fell within the province of Government. The above referred decision is not helpful to resolve the present dispute. The other authority on which implicit reliance was placed is reported as "National Shipping Corporation v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others (I). This authority deals with National Shipping Corporation and the relevant observations are available on page 5 wherein after dealing with the structure of the National Shipping Corporation it is observed : - "These provisions would show that the management of the petitioner-Corporation was vested in its Board, which, was to carry on its business as a body and the fact, therefore, that majority of its directors are nominated by the Central Government is no legal consequence for these persons, namely, the nominated directors have no individual authority or power to exercise any functions. It is also significant to note that under subsection (3) of section 8 the Board is only to be guided by instructions from the Central Government and that too only on question of policy involving national interest. From these provisions it is obvious that the establishment of the petitioner-Corporation is not being carried on under the authority of the Central Government but on its own authority notwithstanding the restrictions on its borrowing powers or the power vested in the Central Government under section 30 of the Ordinance for winding up. The least that the learned counsel had to show to us was that the petitioner-Corporation would have ceased to carry on its business in the absence of exercise of any authority by the Central Government. No doubt the Central Government has reserved for itself certain powers in the functioning of the Corporation but nonetheless the petitioner-Corporation will continue to function under its own authority without the exercise of any authority by the Central Government. I am, therefore, unable to agree with the learned Appellate Tribunal that the petitioner-Corporation is an establishment carried on under the authority of the Central Government."
' The authority is also distinguishable on the ground that the learned Judges were dealing mainly with the question of Joint Stock Company and they have arrived at the finding that the National Shipping Corporation was a Joint Stock Company having no statutory service rules with regard to its employees and, therefore, the employees establishment is governed by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. On the other hand break-up of the funds of the respondent Council are given in section 10 of the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Act (XXX of 1973) which is as follows:- "10. Funds of the Council.-(1) The funds of the Council shall {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1975PLC1 {{FOOT NOTE}} ' comprise--
(a) funds of the registered Council which stand transferred to the Council under section 22 ;
(b) grants from the Federal Government and the Provincial Government ;
(c) donations and endowments ; and
(d) income and receipts from such other sources as may be approved by the Federal Government.
(2) The Council may open a deposit account with the State Bank of Pakistan or with any agency of the State Bank other than a Government Treasury or, with the approval of the Federal Government, with any other Bank.
(3) The accounts of the Council shall be audited by the Auditor-General of Pakistan, and shall be maintained and presented for audit in such form and manner as may be prescribed."
' Under section 11 the budget of the Council is to be submitted to the Federal Government.
4. I am of the view that the structure of each and every establishment has to be looked into to find out whether it is carried on by under the authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government and the judgments pronounced with regard to other establishments would not be of any help. In this case it is crystal-clear that the respondent-Council established under section 3 of Act XXX of 1973 is totally controlled by the Federal Government. All its members are nominated by the Federal Government under section 4. Its functions enumerated by section 6 are not commercial but to set up and manage technological research institutes exclusively for certain selected industries and such laboratories and centers as may be required for the promotion of the overall technological development of the country. Federal Government under section 15 issues directives and orders from time to time which the Council shall have to follow. It is the Federal Government who has to frame rules for carrying out the purpose of Act XXX of 1973. The regulations of the Council could not be framed without the prior permission of the Federal Government. The provisions of this Act XXX of 1973, B its scheme and purpose leaves one in no manner of doubt that Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Laboratories, respondent-establishment is carried on under the authority of the Federal Government. As such the first requirement to oust the applicability of the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance stands fulfilled. Now reverting to the second objection whether any statutory rules of service are in the field applicable to the appellant, it may be mentioned that originally Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research was established by the Government of Pakistan in the year 1953 as a registered society under the Societies Registration Act of 1860. The Bye-laws of the PCSIR were framed and were amended from time to time with the approval of the Government of Pakistan. The amended version of the Bye-laws of the PCSIR framed with the prior permission of the Government of Pakistan are available at pages 104 to 116 of the file of this case. A perusal of Bye-law 38 would show that the Director of Scientific and Industrial Research shall exercise the powers similar to those of a Head of Department of the Central Government specified in Appendix 1 of the Bye-laws. Bye-law 41 (a) to (c) provides that in matter of appointment, promotion, dismissal and regulation of pay, leave, etc. The servants of the PCSIR are governed by corresponding provisions of the Central Government, Fundamental and Supplementary Rules, etc. Appendix I, integral part of Bye-laws, contains the schedule of powers vested in the Director. Para. 42 of the Schedule of Powers reads as under :- "Powers to impose all penalties specified in rule 49 of the Civil Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules as regards non-gazette ted staff subject to the provision of section 240 (2) of the Government of India Act, 1935 as adopted by the Government of Pakistan."
5. At the time of framing of the above said bye-laws Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules held the field in the matter of dismissal, appeals, etc. Of the Government Servants under the control of the Central Government. The said Rules apply to the employees of PCSIR by virtue of bye-law 41 (a) to (c) read with para- 42 of the PCSIR Bye-laws. On the clear language of para. 42 of the Schedule of Powers read with Bye-laws 38 to 41 (a) to (c) the rules applicable to the Government Servants in the matter of promotion/dismissal, etc. Would ipso facto be applicable to the servants of the PCSIR.
' On 9th Feburary, 1973 the PCSIR Act XXX of 1973, was promulgated and by virtue of section 20 of the Act all rules, regulations and bye-laws made by the Registered Council which were in force prior to the enforcement of the said Act were kept alive. As a result the Bye-laws of 1961 continue to have legal force and operation till these are repealed or replaced as contemplated by section 18/19 of Act XXX of 1973.
6. At pages 135 to 140 of the file revised schedules of powers under the Bye-laws made by the Council are available, According to para. 19 of the revised schedule of powers the Director PCSIR is empowered to impose all penalties on the employees under their control in NPS 1 to 15 in accordance with Government Servants (Conduct) Rules of 1964 and Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1973. Para. 19 is in the following terms :- "Power to impose all penalties on employees under their control in NPS 1 to 15 in accordance with Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973."
7, The conclusion that can be arrived at from what has been referred to hereinbefore is that the Bye-laws of 1961 still continue to apply and stand protected by section 20 of the Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Act (XXX of 1973) ; that under Bye-laws 38 to 41 (a) to (c) the Director PCSIR exercises powers similar to those of Head of Department of the Central Government and in the matter of appointment, promotion and dismissal, etc. The employees of the Council are governed by the corresponding provisions of the Rules applicable to the employees of the Central Government. The Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973 and in fact any rule that may become applicable to the employees of the Central Government would mutatis mutandis be applicable to the employee of the PCSIR.
8. On the view of the matter that I take the respondent-establishment being operated under the authority of the Federal Government and having the statutory rules of service, conduct and discipline governing its employees, West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable to the case of the appellant. The order of the Labour Court, therefore, is unexceptionable. As such the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.