DECISION The impugned order, dated 3-12-1985, is challenged by the appellant.
2. Rashidullah, an applicant (respondent herein) filed and application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969 for his re-instatement and back benefits.
3. The facts are that Rashidullah was employed as a Driver in Pakistan Swedish Institute of Technology since 1976. He was in search of Government service and as such he took up an employment with appellant No.1 Le, the Karachi Transport Corporation. He further submitted that the said Institute after learning that he was also employed by K. T. C. Dismissed him from service on 17-9-1984 under the Sind Civil Service (Efficiency s Discipline) Rules, 1973, and the copy of the said order was also delivered to the appellant No. 2, namely, K. T. C. What the K. T. C. Did, it also issued a charge-sheet to the respondent on 29-9-1984, for having been employed in two different organizations. Rashidullah submitted a satisfactory explanation to the charge-sheet but he was dismissed from the service of the K. T. C. He, therefore, gave a notice and subsequently a grievance petition under section 25-A, I. R. O. 1969, was filed.
4. The stand taken by the K.T.C. Is that he could not have served the two organizations simultaneously and it is against the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, and the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and he was rightly dismissed.
5. The evidence was taken and the matter was heard.
6. I have heard the appellant. The respondent has been dismissed from service by the appellants on the ground that in addition to the employment with them, the respondent was employed with Swedish Pakistan Institute of Technology and thereby he committed an act of misconduct. The appellant had issued the charge-sheet against the respondent for misconduct under the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, as well as the Road Transport Workers Ordinance. 1961. From the perusal of the Standing Orders one cannot find any provision which bars from employment in any other establishment or organization and the learned representative for the appellants also failed to point out any provision therein or any other labour laws. His contention is that the appellant No.1, the K.T.C. Has framed Rules relating to misconduct of the employees and according to these rules, an employee of appellant No.1 is barred from seeking employment or rendering service in any other establishment in addition to his employment with the appellant No.1.
The learned representative for the appellants however, failed to point out as to how the Rules framed within the meaning of the first proviso to section 1 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, as to exclude the application of the provisions of the said Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 on the appellant No.1.
7. In the impugned order the appellants have raised the plea that P. P. C. Vide section 21, has declared the certain officers as Public Servants, but, I am afraid that this is to determine and govern the criminal liabilities of the said public servants. The Rule which is quoted by the appellants with regard to the misconduct of the driver, Rashidullah is that he after having been employed in the Government service shall not seek a parallel other job. Here is not the case. He was employed by the Swedish Pakistan Institute of Technology but he left the S.P.I.T. And joined the Government Organization. At any rate, neither the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 nor the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, forbid the double employment, although morally considered, it was improper.
8. I, therefore, refuse to admit the appeal and as such dismiss it in limine, but would not allow any back benefits to the respondent in this case.