The respondent has moved an application for rejection of the petitioner's case for the reasons that he is a dismissed employee. Being a dismissed employee, he does not fall within the definition of a worker given in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He has, thus, no locus standi to move this Court.
2. The petitioner does not agree with this view point. According to him, the establishment is governed by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968, hereinafter to be referred to as the Standing Orders Ordinance. According to Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance a dismissed employee can take action in accordance with the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He has come in this Court in the light of the said provision, therefore, his case is quite competent.
3. In order to arrive at a conclusion, I have gone through the record and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. Keeping in view the facts and law, my finding is that the petitioner- --s view point is correct. The petitioner has rightly relied upon Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. For grasping the situation, fully, I reproduce the same as under: - ---The service of a workman shall not be terminated nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In case a workman is aggrieved by the termination of his service, or removal, retrenchment discharge or dismissal, he may take action in accordance with the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969) and thereupon the provisions of the said Ordinance shall apply as they apply to the redress of an individual grievance.--- A plain reading of the above provisions shows that workman who is aggrieved by the order of his dismissal can take action under section A 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. The petitioner, therefore, has come in this) Court properly.
4. The respondent has relied upon the findings of worthy Lahore High Court, Lahore delivered in a writ petition titled N.B.P., etc. v. PLAT etc. Reported as NLR 1985 Lah.
62. According to that, he says worthy Lahore High Court, Lahore, has clearly ousted the dismissed employees from the definition of workman given by the I. R.O., 1969. The finding being clear cut in favour of the respondent, this Court has no escape but to proceed, accordingly. With all regards to the findings of the worthy Lahore High Court, Lahore, I submit that the plea of Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance was not raised before it. Moreover, Standing Orders Ordinance was not held applicable to the banks which was a subject-matter of discussion before the worthy Lahore High Court, Lahore. In this context, the facts of that case were quite different from the one in hand.
5. The respondent has further relied upon the judgment of worthy Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab, delivered in Nabi Muhammad Khan v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Highway Department, cited as 1986 PLC 1144 and also upon an unreported judgment delivered on 5-5-1986 in Appeal No. SL-513/85-Pb titled as Punjab Road Transport Corporation Lahore through The District Manager (Intercity)
Sahiwal v. Muhammad Yaqub son of Noor Hussain. According to him, the view point of worthy Lahore High Court referred to above has been followed in both these judgments, particularly in the case of Punjab Road Transport Corporation where the Standing Orders Ordinance is applicable.
There can be hence no favourable findings in support of the petitioner. Most respectfully, I differ from the view point of the respondent even in this connection for the same reason that the plea of Standing Orders 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance' has not been taken therein. In the given situation, we can say that the findings of worthy Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal equally do not hit the case of the petitioner.
6. Whether the Standing Orders Ordinance is applicable to the petitioner's case is another, issue. Its applicability is a mixed question of law and fact It will be settled after completion of evidence and arguments whether the establishment is covered by the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance or not. In case it is covered by it, the view taken by the petitioner shall follow. In case the situation otherwise then the judgments quoted by the respondent shall have effect automatically without any application on his behalf.
7. With this view of the matter the petitioners case cannot be rejected at this stage. The application fails which is as such hereby dismissed.