1. DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court No, V dated 29-9-1988.
2. ' I have heard Mr. Muhammad Qasim for the respondent. Nasim Ahmad present in person.
3. ' The brief facts of the case are that on 16-5-1985 the respondent applied for two months leave and sent such leave application. It appears that this leave was not granted by the appellants and by letter dated 9-7-1985 the respondent was directed to hand over charge. He again filed the application for leave upto 8-9-1985. By letter dated 9-1-1986 the appellant was informed by the respondent that he was dismissed from service on 28-12-1985. On 15-1-1986 the respondent submitted his departmental appeal which was dismissed on 29-3-1986. After serving notice upon the appellant, the respondent filed the grievance petition. The appellant resisted this application mainly on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction.
4. Admittedly the appellant is a statutory body and has its own statutory rules of service. In view of proviso to section 1 (4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the provisions of the said Ordinance would not be applicable to the case of respondent. However, if he is a workman as defined in section 2(xxviii) of I.R.O., 1969, he is not barred from seeking relief under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. Reliance is placed on the D.B.
5. Decision of the High Court of Sindh in Constitution Petition No, B-684 of 1982 National Bank of Pakistan v. The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others decided on 26-1-1989. In that case also the National Bank Staff Rules of 1973, being statutory rules it was held that the Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable but it was further held that if right of workman, if any, under the said statutory rules 1973 was infringed the worker can enforce his right under the I.R.O.
6. ' The respondent was admittedly senior Clerk drawing basic salary of less than Rs,800. As such he is a workman as defined in section 2(xxviii) of I.R.O., 1969 and he is entitled to file the application under section 25-A of the I.R.O.
7. ' Admittedly prior to the dismissal of the respondent from service, no charge-sheet or notice was served on the respondent and no enquiry was held. The procedure resorted to by the appellant was not only against the principles of natural justice but also against their own statutory rules. No order of dismissal on such proceedings is sustainable.
8. ' The learned Labour Court has rightly allowed the grievance petition of the respondent. I see no merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.