DECISION ' This appeal has been filed against the order of learned Presiding Officer, IVth Sind Labour Court, Karachi, dated 13th March, 1988.
2. The brief facts of this case are that the appellant who was employee of the respondent was dismissed from service on account of continuous long absence on 22-7-1985. He claims to have been making representations to various authorities from time to time but without any avail. He, therefore, represented to the Minister for Production, Government of Pakistan and the Ministry of Production by its order dated 11-3-1987 ordered the reinstatement of the appellant. He approached the respondent for implementation of the said order but respondent did not reinstate him in service. He consequently submitted grievance notice on 10-1-1988 to the respondent who did not reply to the notice. Consequently he filed grievance application before the learned Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969 on 28-1-1988.
3. The respondent resisted the application and raised preliminary objections that no right under law was created in the applicant under the alleged order of the Ministry and further that the grievance application was time-barred.
4. I have heard Ch. Rashid Ahmed for the appellant and Mr. S.M. Yaqoob for the respondents.
5. The facts of the case are not disputed. Only points that require consideration are:--
(i) Whether the order of the Ministry created any right under the law in the appellant so that he could seek its enforcement under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969; and
(ii) Whether the application was time-barred.
6. It is not disputed that the respondent is a limited Company and is not a Statutory Body. It is further contended by Ch. Rashid Ahmed that the Controlling Authority of the respondent is the Government of Pakistan and as such it was competent to pass an order reinstating the appellant. It is further submitted that after reinstatement in service by the Government the action of the respondent in not reinstating him would give him a continuous cause of action till he is reinstated in service or his services are terminated afresh after reinstatement as ordered by the Government.
7. It may be relevant to reproduce the order on the basis of which the appellant claims the right:-- ' Dr. M. Akram Sheikh, Managing Director, Pakistan Steel, ' Karachi.
' Dear Sir, ' Please refer to Pakistan Steel's letter No, AP(PB) 2(1)/86/17237, dated 29th December, 1986, regarding reinstatement in service of Raja Manzoor Hussain, Ex-Driver, Pakistan Steel. The competent authority in appreciation of his petition dated nil (copy enclosed) has been pleased to reinstate Raja Manzoor Hussain in service and also to relax ban on recruitment in order to adjust him against an existing vacancy of a Driver in Pakistan Steel. You are, therefore, requested to reinstate him in service immediately and the intervening period may be treated as leave without pay. A compliance report in this respect may also be furnished to the Ministry.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-- (Ch. ASS MUHAMMAD)
Section Officer.
8. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob has raised two-fold objections against this letter. It is firstly submitted that the order of reinstatement is not issued by the competent authority as Government is not the competent authority and secondly the copy of this letter was not endorsed to the appellant but it was part of internal correspondence between Ministry and the respondent and did not confer any right upon the appellant. It is further submitted that the fact that the Ministry was not competent is clear from letter itself as it requests the Managing Director of the respondent to reinstate the appellant.
9. It may be pointed out that the grievance application was decided by the learned Labour Court on preliminary objection without recording of any evidence holding that this order did not create any right under the law in the appellant who could enforce such right under section 25-A of the I.R.O. In fact the whole question hinges around the fact as to who is competent authority and whether the A Ministry concerned was the competent authority to pass the impugned order. This question can be decided only after evidence is recorded and the rules are produced with regard to competency or otherwise of the Ministry to pass such an order. The decision of the other point raised in the matter depends upon the determination of the question of the authority or competency of the Ministry to order reinstatement of the appellant.
10. Under the circumstances the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Labour Court No, 4, for deciding the matter afresh after going opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.