The appellant, who claims to have been a bus driver of the respondent since 5/6 years and to have been unauthorisedly removed from service, without any termination order in writing, preferred a grievance petition under section 25-A. I. R. O., before the learned VIth Labour Court on 5th July, 1981, containing the following prayers :- (1)-Direct the respondent to re-instate/take the applicant on duty with continuity in service and with all back benefits from the date of illegal ,and unlawful removal, 1st June, 1981
(2) Direct the respondent to make payment of monthly wages of appli--cant for the months of November. December, 1980, January to May, 19$1 , at the rate of Rs. 600 p. m. Total amounting to Rs.
4,200.
(3) Direct the respondent to make payment of weekly rest allowance for, the period of 3 years for which days the applicant has perform. Ed bts duties without availing weekly rest.
(4) Direct the respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 500 deposited by applicant towards the Security Deposit at the time of appoint--ment.
(5) Direct the respondent to make payment of bhata for 68 days as shown in para. 9 of application at the rate of Rs. 15 per day.
(6) Direct the respondent to make payment of 19 days duty performed . By applicant on long route at the rate of Rs. 20 per day.
(7) Any other relief which this honourable Court deems fit and proper be awarded to applicant."
2. The respondent resisted the grievance petition on the 2 main grounds, firstly, that the appellant had never worked for or in the respon--dent-Company and that further the appellant---s grievance petition even other--were was not maintainable. The learned Labour Court , by its impugned decision, given on 16th February, 1982. Held that the appellant was in the employment of the respondent as driver of bus No. HDA-9679. This finding was mainly based on the fact that the appellant was challaned and convicted under sections 279 and 337, P. P. C., while driving Bus No. HDA-9679 on 8th- January, 1979, which bus is said to have been involved in an accident in which Haji Ahmed Ali and Muhammad Bux sustained injuries. The learned Labour Court , however, dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the ground that he did not fall within the definition of a `worker' as given to the Industrial Relations Ordinance as admittedly his services had been terminated and such termination was neither on account of an industrial dispute nor it led to an industrial dispute.
3. It was contended by Mr. Wahid Bux, the learned Representative for the appellant, that the appellant was a `worker' for the purposes of the Road Transport Workers' Ordinance, 1961, and as section 7 of the said Ordinance had made material provisions of the Standing Orders, particularly clause (3) of Standing Order 12 applicable to such workers and the road transport service in which they were employed, the appellant was entitled to file and maintain a grievance petition against his unlawful termination from service. On the other hand, Mr. H. M. Amer, the learned counsel for the respondent, argued that it had not been established that the appellant was ever in the employment of the respondent and that further the learned Labour Court has rightly held that the appellant was entitled to file or maintain a grievance petition against termination of his services. The learned counsel submitted that in order to entitle a person to file a grievance petition against termination of services under the Road Transport Workers' Ordinance, 1961, he bad, to be a worker in a road transport service. According to him only such establishments carrying passengers and goods in vehicles would be deemed to be road transport service as employed not less than 20 persons. The Road Transport Workers' Ordinance, 1961, has not directly laid down any mode for terminating the services of a workman employed in a road transport service, but the object has been indirectly achieved by making certain provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, applicable to such workers. Among the provisions which have been made applicable to such workers are those contained in Standing Order 12, excluding clause (2) thereof. Thus, the provisions of clauses (1) and
(3) of Standing Order 12 are made applicable to workmen employed in a road transport Service.
Clause (1) of Standing Order 12 empowers an, employer to terminate the services of a permanent workman on giving him one month's notice or pay for one month in lieu of such notice, while clause
(3) of Standing Order 12 lays down that the services of a workman (whether permanent or temporary) shall not be terminated except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reasons for such termination. The said clause further provides that if a workman is aggrieved by the termina--tion of his services he could take action in accordance with the provisions of section 25-A,
1. R. O., and thereupon the provisions of the said section shall apply as they apply to the redress of an individual grievance. As such, in order that a worker, as defined in the Road Transport Workers' Ordinance should be entitled to file a grievance petition against the termina--tion of his services, it is not at all necessary or the requirement of law that he should be a workman as defined in the 1. R. O., since he would be entitled to file a grievance petition under section 25-A, in accordance with the provisions of clause (3) of Standing Order 12.
4. It was, however, argued by Mr. P. M. Amer that a worker employ--ed in a road transport service would be entitled to file a grievance petition against the termination of his services only if the number of workmen employed in a road transport service-was not less than 20. 1 regret that I find no force in this contention. Neither the definition of road transport service nor that of worker in the Road Transport Workers' Ordinance lays down any minimum number of workers. Moreover, section 7 of the said Ordinance lays down that specified provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, would apply to every transport service as if such road transport service were an industrial establishment to which the aforesaid Ordinance had been applied by a Notification under clauses (c) of subsection (4) of section 1 thereof and as if a worker (as defined in the Road Transport Ordinance were a temporary workman or permanent workman, as the case may be within the purview of the Ordinance. Although ordinarily the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance are applicable only to those industrial and commercial establish--ments wherein 20 or more workmen are employed, but it is also applicable to such classes of industrial and commercial establishments as Government may from time to time, by Notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf, as laid down in clause (c) of subsection (4) of section 1 of the Ordi--nance. It is to this clause that reference has been made in, section 7,of the Road Transport Workers' Ordinance, 1961, and thus every road transport. Service is deemed to be an industrial/commercial establishment for the purposes of the West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, irrespective of the fact whether the number of its employees is less or more than 20. Furthermore, since every worker employed in a road transport service is deemed to he a workman for the pur--poses of the West Pakistan Industrial & Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, and every road transport service is deemed to be an industrial/commercial establishment for the purposes of the said Ordinance it is immaterial whether otherwise a worker as defined in the Road Trans--port Workers Ordinance falls within the ordinary definition of `workman' as contained in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance or a road transport service otherwise falls within the definition of industrial/commercial establishment for the pur--poses of the said Ordinance. I am, therefore, inclined to the view that by reason of the fact that the appellant was a workman employed in a road transport service, he would be entitled to file a grievance petition against the termination of his services under the provisions of section 7 of the Road Transport Workers' Ordinance, 1961, read with clause (3) of Standing Order 12 and section 25-A, I. R.
O. 1 have already adverted to the fact that the learned Labour Court has held the appellant to be an employee of the respondent. I would concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court particularly in view of the fact that the appellant was convicted of rashly driving the bus of the respondent. It has been admitted by the res--pondent in his evidence before the learned Labour Court that he runs 2 buses for hire and transport of passengers from Hyderabad to Mirpurkhas. His establishment is thus deemed to be a road transport service for the pur--poses of the Road Transport Workers' Ordinance.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that I would set aside the decision of the learned Labour Court . As the learned Labour Court has dis--missed the appellant's grievance petition on the legal point that his grievance petition is not maintainable and has not considered the merits of the case, I would remand the case to it for a decision on merits.