DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order dated 8th July 1991 passed by the learned Presiding Officer Sindh Labour Court No, IV at Karachi whereby the grievance application of the appellant was dismissed.
2. I have heard Mr. M.M. Kazim for the appellant and Mr. Zahid Hamid for the respondent. I have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The brief facts of the case are, that appellant was admittedly employee of the respondent. The appellant was granted Pay Group No, VI by the respondent vide order dated 3-8-1989 on the basis of circular dated 17-10-1985. Thereafter he continued to draw his salary in Pay Group VI until the said order was cancelled vide order dated 22-10-1989. The respondents reviewed their order and restored the appellant in Pay Group No, VI on 29-11-1989, whereafter he continued to draw the salary in Pay Group No, VI. This order was again withdrawn vide order dated 22-5-1990. After serving grievance notice upon the respondents the appellant filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. The main ground on which the grievance petition was resisted was that the grievance notice was not served upon the proper person viz. The employer.
4. So far the facts are concerned there appears to be no dispute and the finding of the learned Labour Court in this respect may be reproduced as under:- "On the merits it has come on the record that the applicant after Memo dated 29-11-1989 was restored the Pay Group No, VI and which is Annexure with the grievance application and whereafter the applicant continued to draw the salary in Pay Group No, VI until the impugned order/memo dated 22-5-1990 was passed. The respondents have not brought on record that the right under the said memo dated 29-11-1990, Annexure 'F with the grievance application was not actually acquired or that the applicant had not drawn the salary or any other benefits of Pay Group No, VI until passing of the impugned memo/order. This being so, the respondents could not withdraw the earlier order Annexure 'F' with the grievance application without due process of law and take away the acquired right of the applicant, in this connection reliance is placed on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 which has been interpreted in PLI 1975 (Lahore) 295, 1981 SCM R 604, PLD 1983 Lah. 1, PLD 1975 Lahore 651 and PLD 1973 Quetta 14."
' This finding of the learned Labour Court on merit is not challenged by the respondent by filing any counter-appeal.
5. The learned Labour Court has however dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant had served the grievance notice on the Managing Director of the respondent whereas his appointing authority was Superintendent and therefore Superintendent would be deemed to be the employer and not Managing Director for the purpose of grievance notice under section 25-A of the IRO 1969. Word 'employer' has been defined in section 2(viii) which may be reproduced as under:-
(viii) "Employer" in relation to an establishment means any person or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, who or which employs workmen in the establishment under a contract of employment and includes--
(a) an heir, successor or assign as the case may be, of such person or body as aforesaid;
(b) any person responsible for the management, supervision and control of the establishment;
(c) in relation to an establishment run by or under the authority of any department of the Federal Government or Provincial Government, the authority appointed in this behalf or, where no authority is appointed, the Head of the Department;
(d) in relation to an establishment run by or on behalf of a local authority, the officer appointed in this behalf or where no officer is so appointed, the chief executive officer of that authority.
' Special Provision--For the purposes of distinction from the category of "workers" or "'workmen" officers and employees of a department of the Federal Government or a Provincial Government or a local authority, who belong to the superior, managerial, secretarial, directional, supervisory or agency staff and who have been notified for this purpose in the official Gazette shall be deemed to fall within the category of "employer".
(e) in relation to any other establishment, the proprietor of such establishment and every director, manager, secretary, agent or officer or person concerned with the management of the affairs thereof; If clause (b) is made applicable the Managing Director of the respondent. Would be deemed to be the employer as he is the person responsible for the management of the respondent.
6. If the Steel Mill is run by or under the authority of the Federal Government clause (c) would be applicable. There is no evidence to show, that Superintendent has been appointed as employer by the Government and in that case Head of Department would be the employer. It cannot be said that Managing Director is not Head of the Department.
7. If however clause (e) is applicable, then the proprietor of such establishment and every director, manager, secretary, agent or officer or person concerned with the management of the affairs thereof would be employer. The grievance notice addressed to the Managing Director of the respondent undoubtedly complies with the requirement of the provisions of section 25-A of the IRO 1969 as the Managing Director of the respondent could not be excluded from the category of employer as defined above. The appeal is therefore allowed. The impugned order of the learned Labour Court and the impugned order of the respondent dated 22-5-1990 are set aside. The appellant is restored to Pay Group No, VI. He is entitled to salary of Pay Group No, VI from date it was stopped vide the impugned order dated 22-5-1990. The order to be implemented within one month.