DECISION These are two cross-appeals, one filed by Messrs Ulbricht Pakistan Ltd., while the other was filed by workman, Muhammad Qasim, against an impugned order, dated 15-2-1986 passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the workman directing his reinstatement but without back benefits and also giving an option to the management to hold fresh enquiry against the workman, and depending the payment of back benefits on result of the fresh enquiry.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that worker, Muhammad Qasim was appointed as setter by the management of Messrs Ulbricht's Pakistan Ltd., Karachi and it was claimed the due to departmental rivalries, the Factory Manager, Lt.-Col. Inam had turned him out of the factory on 2- 5-1982 and against this action of the management, the worker had sent a legal notice and in consequence thereof, he was taken back in service but was transferred to Head Office of the establishment. It was also the case of the worker that after about two months of the above incident, a charge-sheet, dated 17-7--1982 under Standing Order 15(3-c) on ,,the charge of habitual absence from duties, was issued to him by the management and though he had submitted a satisfactory reply thereto, yet an Enquiry Officer was appointed who had conducted the enquiry against him, in which he had participated and raised certain objections,., but, before completion of the said enquiry, the Factory Manager had dragged him out the factory on 10-8-1982 and also threatened him to involve him in a, criminal case. However, the worker submitted his grievance petitions against the management before the learned Labour Court which was subsequently dismissed by it on the legal objection raised by the management that the said petition was time-barred and that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. On an appeal by the worker, Muhammad Qasim, this Tribunal, vide order, dated 7-4-1983, had set aside the above order of the learned Labour Court and remanded the case to it with direction that the parties should be allowed an opportunity to examine appropriate evidence and dispose of the case on merit.
3. Thereafter on remand of the case, the management resisted the same on merits and had submitted that the worker had remained absent from duty without any just excuse and that it was incorrect to say that Lt.-Co1.Inamullah Khan had turned him out of the factory and as the behaviour of the worker had been insulate and rash, therefore, he was required to report at the Head Office for duty, but he neither reported at the Head Office nor had come back to the factory and that he did not participate in the domestic enquiry, so he left his duties on his own. Further, it was a case of the management that it was a Ministry of Defence oriented project, manufacturing defence goods, therefore, it was exempted from the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, hence his grievance petition was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
4. The worker, Muhammad Qasim had examined himself and also produced two witnesses, namely, Muhammad Hanif and Zaheer Ahmad in support of his case, while the management had examined Muhammad Saleem, Siddique, Shafi Ahmad and Akbar Ali. Lt.-Col. Inamullah Khan was also examined as Court witness at the request of the management. The learned Labour Court , thereafter has passed the impugned order, hence these two cross appeals. As both these cross appeals are against the same and similar impugned order, therefore, I would decide both these appeals by this single decision.
5. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Naseem, the learned Advocate for the management and Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned Counsel on behalf of the workers and have carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. It was argued by Mr. Muhammad Naseem, the learned Advocate for the company that the company was rendering services and had installation, connected and incidental to Armed Forces of Pakistan, therefore, enjoys exemption from the operation of Industrial Relations, Ordinance, 1969 in view of section 1(3) of the Ordinance. In support of his case, he relied upon the cased reported in 1974 PLC at page 10, 1976 PLC at page 855 and PLD 1977 Karachi at page 314, and further that as the worker was an absconder as he was neither removed, terminated nor dismissed, therefore, his case did not fall within the ambit of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. On the other hand. Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned counsel for the worker had submitted that the grievance petition of the worker was competent as he being a workman was not removed in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) and even if the provisions of I.R.O. 1969 were not applicable. He placed his reliance on a case reported in 1981 PLC at page 630. Mr. Khalid Javed has further pleaded that as the management had not removed the worker after proper inquiry, therefore, he was entitled to be reinstated with full back benefits. From the above pleading of the parties, I am of the view that the employees of the company could not invoke the provisions of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969, but at the same time they, being workman, are competent to approach the Labour Court for the relief if the company had removed them in accordance with the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. In this behalf, I am fortified with an authority of this Tribunal, reported in 1981 PLC at page 630, in a case between the same company and its three employees. In the present case too, the worker was quite competent to invoke of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to seek relief. Therefore, I am of the view that the learned Labour Court has very reasonably and thoroughly discussed at length the facts, evidence and circumstances and thereafter came to a correct conclusion that the worker Muhammad Qasim was entitled to be reinstated in service and I would also hold it accordingly. As regards the issue permitting the company to hold fresh enquiry against the worker. Keeping into consideration the facts and evidence on record, I would set aside this part of the impugned order of the learned Labour Court, therefore in view of my this decision, the worker would also not be entitled to back benefits.
6. For the reason, stated by me above, I would maintain the impugned order with the above observation and dismissed both these) cross-appeals.
M. Y. H. /934/ Lb. S