1. My this order will also dispose of the other four Petitions Nos. 198, 199, 200 and 203/ 1970 because a common point of law has arisen on the preliminary objection in the five petitions.
2. The five petitioners, workmen of the respondent-Company, have applied to this Court under Standing Order 18 that the order of dismissal passel by the respondent on 10-5-1970 under Standing Order 15, sub-clause 2 (iv) against them be declared illegal and that the petitioners be re-instated with conse4urntial benefits. The learned counsel for the respondent on 28- 1 1-1970, raised preliminary objections that under Standing Order 18, these petitions are not competent because no complaint shall lie against the order of termination of employment of workmen unless they are officers of a registered Trade Union and Their employment is alleged to have been terminated for their Trade Union activities and that since the five petitioners were not officers of a registered Trade Union, as such the present petitions under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 could not be maintainable.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that a reading of the proviso clause of Standing Order 18 makes it clear that only in cases of simple termination of employment, a petition under section 18 would be competent if the workman is an officer of a registered Trade Union and his employment is alleged to have been terminated for his Trade Union activities but in cases of dismissal from service, this condition is not necessary. He further argued that since the petitioners have been dismissed and their cases are not that of a simple termination of a employment, as such the workmen would be entitled to bring their grievance to the notice of this Court under Standing Order 18.
4. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on Muhammad Nazir Biswa v. Managing Director, Progressive Papers Ltd. (1970 PLC 37) and Afzal Ali v.
5. Managing Director, Progressive Papers Ltd. (1970 PLC 53). In both the cases, it has been held that in case of dismissal, Standing Order 18 would have no application, not being the officers of a registered Trade Union. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on M. R. Hamid v. Aftab Ahmad, Manager, Progressive Papers Ltd. (1970 PLC 596), where it has been held by this Court that an industrial workman who has a grievance in respect of any matter under this Ordinance can file an application under Standing Order 15 (4) having regard to the provisions of Standing Order 18. It has further been held that it is not confined to a workman, who is an officer of a registered Trade Union to file such a petition. The proviso to Standing Order 18 (a) and (b) simply means that if the employment of an officer of a registered Trade Union is termi--nated on account of his Trade Union activities, he can file an application against the order of termination of his services. Standing Order 15 (4) makes the dismissal order of a workman illegal, if no reasonable opportunity is given to him to explain the circumstances alleged against him and as such he is entitled to get the order of dismissal set aside and that the proviso to Standing Order 18 cannot take away this right, because a workman can seek redress, if he has a grievance in respect of any matter under this Ordinance.
6. I have considered the arguments of both sides. Standing Order 18 reads as follows: - Grievance procedure.-Any individual workman who has a grievance in respect of any matter under this Ordinance and intends to seek redress thereof, shall observe the following procedure :-
(a) The workman concerned shall bring his grievance to the notice of his employer, in writing, within fifteen days of the occurrence of the cause of such grievance and the employer shall, within thirty days of such grievance being brought to his notice, inquire into the matter, giving the workman concerned an opportunity of being heard, and communicate his decision, in writing, to the said workman;
(b) If the employer fails to give a decision within the period specified in clause (a), or if the workman is dissatisfied with such decision, the workman may make a complaint to the Industrial Court having jurisdiction, within thirty days from the date of the decision, or where the employer fails to give a decision, within- sixty days of the workman bringing the grievance to the notice of the employer, unless the grievance has already been raised or has otherwise been taken cognizance of as an industrial dispute under the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 Provided that no complaint shall lie against an order of termination of employment of a workman unless the workman concerned is an officer of a registered Trade Union and his employment is alleged to have been terminated for his Trade Union activities or unless the workman concerned, whether an officer of a registered Trade Union or not, has been deprived of the benefits accruing to him under this Ordinance.
(c) on receipt of any complaint under clause (b), the Court, after giving notice to the employer concerned and giving the parties an opportunity of being heard, may decide the matter (n such summary way as it deems fits
(d) in deciding the matter, the Court may pass such orders, including orders regarding costs, as it may deem just and proper and it may, in appropriate cases, require by such order, the statement of the complainant, and such order shall be final.".
7. From the above reading of the Standing Order 18, it is concluded that the individual workman who has a grievance in respect of any matter under the Ordinance, can file a petition under Standing Order 18. In the instant cases, it has been mentioned in the petitions that no inquiry was held against them. Therefore, in my opinion keeping in view the principle of natural justice, as laid down by the Supreme Court in University of Dacca and another v. Zakir Ahmad (PLD 1965 SC 90), this Court would have the jurisdiction to go into the question whether the provisions of this Ordinance, have been complied with while passing the order of dismissal. It may also be mentioned at this stage that in the to citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in University of Dacca and another v. Zakir Ahmad does not appear to have been raised, which I find has been raised and is con--sidered in the citations relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As such the citations relied upon by the respondent are distinguishable from the facts of the instant cases inasmuch as that in these five petitions, the petitioners have pleaded their dismissal followed without an inquiry. I am, therefore, of the view that this Court can proceed to go into the question of the legality of the dismissal order and the proviso to the Standing Order 18 would not be a bar. Since the question) of the legality of dismissal will involve evidence, I therefore direct the parties to file a list of their witnesses tomorrow.