Pir Sultan Mahmood was employed in the beginning as an Assistant Safety Inspector in Tarbela Joint Venture, Tarbela Dam. Subsequently on Ist August 1969, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Safety Inspector, Class "B." On 27th April, 1971, however, he was given a show-cause notice, Exh. P. A. Explaining the charges against him, that he had left his post early, had not ensured that the area was cleared for blast, had made a wrong statement that he was present when he was not, and bad failed to report the accident, and calling upon Lim to submit his explanation within 2 days. Pir Sultan Mahmood submitted his explanation on 27th April 1971 copy of which is Exh. R. W.
2/13, but as the explanation was found unsatisfactory, the Management ordered an equiry against him and appointed Sahibzada Mahmood Jan, Advisor, Pay Office, as an Enquiry Othcer. The Enquiry Officer accordingly held the enquiry in the presence of Pir Sultan Mahmood and later submitted a report holding the official guilty of the charges against him, and recommended that he should be demoted to a lower rank but if be did not accept the demotion, his services should be terminated.
Pir Sultan Mahmood was accordingly demoted to the rank of Safety Guard but he refused to accept it, with the result that his services were terminated vide order, dated 6th July 1971 (Copy Exh.
R. W. 2/H). Pir Sultan Mahmood, therefore, submitted a petition before this Court under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, read with Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance of 1968, seeking to set aside the order of his demotion as well as termination of his services and praying for his re-instatement on the same post which he was holding at the time of the termination of his services. He has challenged the order of his demotion and termination on the grounds that he was not guilty of any misconduct, that the enquiry was irregular and that his demotion and his subsequent discharge from the service was against all canons of natural justice.
2. Mr. Maeckel, Project Manager, and Mr. B. C. Hooper, Safety Engineer, Safety Department of the Tarbela Joint Venture, Tarbela, who were impleaded as respondents, however, contested the petition on the grounds that the same was not maintainable in law, that the petitioner was not a workman, and that the petitioner had not observed the procedure laid down in the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, before approaching the Labour Court. The respondents also contended that the enquiry was regular and, as the petitioner did not accept his demotion to a lower rank, there was no alternative -for the Management except to terminate his services.
3. In support of his petition the petitioner only appeared himself. He did not produce any other evidence while the respondents produced Mr. Abdul Waheed, an Assistant Labour Officer of Tarbela Joint Venture (R. W. 1) and Sahibzada Mahmood Jan, Advisor, Pay Office, Tarbela Joint Venture (R.
W. 2) in rebuttal.
4. It is evident from the statement of the petitioner himself that he was given a show-cause notice whereafter Sahibzada Mahmood Jan, who was appointed the Enquiry Officer, held an enquiry, against him, in which he participated. He also admitted that, after the enquiry, he was demoted to the rank of the Safety Guard but he refused to work as such Guard. The enquiry was therefore, quite regular and the petitioner could not assail the enquiry on any, legal ground.
5. Moreover the petitioner has not proved that he is a workman and could approach this Court against the termination of his service under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It is admitted that immediately before the termination of his services, he was an Assistant Safety Inspector (Class `B') and that his duties were mainly supervisory. He admitted that as an Assistant Safety Inspector he supervised the work of Safety Guards and flagman working under him and that he was to see that the workers were properly dressed and not in loose dress. In the case of accident or fire also it was his duty to report the same to the Safety Engineer. Similarly it was his duty not to allow any obstruction on the roads and to see that all safety rules were properly observed by all concerned working under him. Thus there was nothing in his job to bring him under the definition of al workman. His petition under section 34 of the Industrial, Relations Ordinance 1969 is, therefore, incompetent.
6. Besides, the petitioner has not observed the procedure laid down in law before approaching this Court. This procedure is laid down in Standing Order XVIII of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which reads as under :- "18. Grievance Procedure.--Any individual workman who has a grievance in respect of any matter under this Ordinance and intends to seek redress thereof, shall observe the following procedure:-
(a) the workman concerned shall bring his grievance to the notice of his employer, in writing, within fifteen days of the occurrence of the cause of such grievance and the employer shall, within thirty days of such grievance being brought to his notice, inquire into the matter, giving the workman concerned an oppor--tunity of being heard, and communicate his decision, in writing to the said workman ;
(b) if the employer fails to give a decision within the period specified in clause (a), or if the workmen is dissatisfied with such decision, the workman may make- a complaint to the Industrial Court having jurisdiction, within thirty days from the date of the decision, or where the employer fails to give a decision, within sixty, days of the workman bringing the grievance to the notice of the employer, unless the grievance has already been raised or bas otherwise been taken cognizance of as an industrial dispute under the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968: Provided that no complaint shall lie against an order of termination of employment of a workman unless the workman concerned is an Officer of a registered Union and his employment is alleged to have been terminated for his Trade Union activities or unless the workman concerned, whether an Officer of a registered Trade Union or not, has been deprived of the benefits accruing to him under this Ordinance ;
(c) on receipt of any complaint under clause (b), the Court after giving notice to the employer concerned and giving the parties an oppor--tunity of being heard, may decide the matter in such summary way as it deems fit ;
(d) in deciding the matter, the Court may pass such orders, including orders regarding costs, as it may deem just and proper and it may, in appropriate cases, require by such order, the re- instatement of the complainant, and such order shall be final."
7. Now, it is clear from the provisions of this Standing Order that if the employer fails to give a decision in the period specified in clause (a) or if the workman is dissatisfied with such decision, the latter may make complaint to the Labour Court, having jurisdiction, within 30 days from the date of the decision and if the employer fails to give a decision, within 60 days of the workman bringing a grievance to the notice of the employer, unless a grievance has already beta raised or had otherwise been taken cognizance of as an industrial dispute under the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. In the present case, there is nothing on the record to show that after his reduction in rank or after the termination of his services, the petitioner brought his grievances to the notice of his employer within 15 days froth the date of his demotion or termination of services or that the employer had failed to give his decision. There is no doubt that the petitioner did state in his statement before this Court that he did submit a grievance notice under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Com--mercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, against his demotion to the Safety Engineer but he did not prove this assertion. He did not even produce the Safety Engineer to support his assertion or even to file a copy of the grievance notice in the Court. On the other hand, he admitted in the last paragraph of his statement that he did not give any notice against his demotion to the General Manager. He further admitted that he did not give any such notice either to the General Manager or even to the Safety Engineer against the termination of his services. Thus he has obviously failed to observe the mandatory procedure laid down in Standing Order 18 and this failure debars him from approaching this Court for reinstatement. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed G but in view of the poor status of the petitioner, I am not inclined to burden him with costs. I, therefore, allow the parties to bear their own cost. I have consulted Mr. Shaida, A. Qureshi (Member, Labour Court) and he agrees with me in the decision. Pleader's fee Rs. 32.