This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 14-9-1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition was returned to the appellant for lack of jurisdiction.
2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was the employee of Airport Development Agency and was sent to Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on deputation vide order Ex.P-1 dated 1-7-1983. The CAA terminated the services of the appellant. The learned lower Court has held that according to section 23 of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not applicable and thus the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. The learned lower Court has held that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable since the CAA is working under the overall control of the Federal Government and it has its own statutory rules of service. While giving finding on the facts of the case the learned lower Court has held that the order of termination is hit by A the provision of Standing Order 12(3). This finding is correct but the finding that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable is incorrect. Mere control of the Government over a commercial or industrial establishment is not sufficient. The requirement of first proviso to section 1(4)(c) is that such an establishment should be running by or under the authority of the Government. Control is quite different from authority. The Government can have control over an establishment which is not running under its authority. The CAA is running under the authority of Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance and not, under the authority of the Government. Where an enactment authorises an establishment to function, no further authority of any sovereign body is needed. Further authority of sovereign B body is required in cases where the authority under which an establishment is working is not sufficient. An authority given by a statute cannot be insufficient. The respondent did not prove that the CAA has statutory rules of service. Photo copy of the regulations is on the record but it does not show if the regulations were given wide publicity or were got published in the official gazette of Central or Provincial Government. Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, therefore, is applicable.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that since section 23 makes the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 inapplicable and the Labour Courts have been created only under the said Ordinance, the jurisdiction of such Courts is barred and the learned lower Court has rightly returned the grievance petition to the appellant. As has been observed above, application of Industrial Relations Ordinance is barred by section 23 of the Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982.
But since the said Ordinance has not barred the application of Standing Orders Ordinance and this is not the case of the respondent that the appellant is not covered by the definition of workman given in section 2(i) of the said Ordinance, by virtue of Standing Order 12(3) the application given under section 25-A was competent. The learned counsel for the respondent has tried to argue that since the word 'or' appearing on two places in section 23 of the Ordinance is disjunctive I.R.O. is not applicable to the respondents. It makes no difference since by virtue of Standing Order 12(3), an application under section 25-A can be brought in the Labour Courts. Needless to say that help from Standing Order 12(3) can be taken in those cases where for some reasons Industrial Relations Ordinance is not applicable. I, therefore, hold that the learned lower Court had jurisdiction.
4. On merits of the case the finding of the learned lower Court is in favour of the appellant and there is no cross objection or cross appeal from the side of the respondent.
5. As a result of what has been observed above the appeal is accepted and modifying the impugned decision of the learned lower Court on the point of jurisdiction, the grievance petition of the appellant is accepted directing that the appellant be reinstated in service without hack benefits. No other point was argued. Present appellant in person. Mr.Muhammad Anwar Malik, Assistant Director Labour for A.D.A.