DECISION 'This Revision Application is moved against the order dated 28-3-1991 passed by the learned Labour Court No, V at Karachi whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the application of the applicant for rejecting the grievance application filed by the respondent as non-maintainable.
2. I have heard Mr. Qamerul Islam Abbas and have also gone through the relevant documents produced alongwith the Revision Application.
3. The brief facts of the case appear to be, that respondent filed grievance application before the learned Labour Court against the order of his removal from service on the ground, that it did not specify the reasons of termination. In other words he prayed the Court for enforcement of his rights under Standing Order 12(3).
4. Mr. Qamerul Islam contends that respondent has never alleged in the grievance application that his removal was connected with Industrial Dispute. He further contends that a workman as defined under IRO, 1969 can seek redress under section 25-A only when his removal is connected with industrial dispute in terms of definition of workman in IRO. In support he has relied upon decision of this Tribunal in case of Imam Qazi v. The Trustees of the Port of Karachi, 1980 PLC 495. This case is apparently distinguishable because this Tribunal held in that case that West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders Ordinance) was not applicable to that establishment and therefore this Tribunal held that employee could not seek remedy against dismissal before Labour Court unless such dismissal was connected with the _ Industrial Dispute.
5. Mr. Qamerul Islam has also relied upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which has not been produced but he states that Hon'ble Supreme Court had remanded the case back to the High Court to consider the question as to whether a workman within the meaning of clause (xxviii) of section 2, IRO 1969 in relation to proceedings thereunder must have a nexus to Industrial Dispute, if he is a dismissed employee. This order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No, 44-K of 1986 in Civil Petition No,278-K of 1986.
6. In the instant case as pointed above the workman seeks enforcement of the right guaranteed to him under Standing Order 12(3). The workman is also defined under the said Ordinance. Whether the respondent is a workman as defined in,Standing Orders Ordinance or not and whether his right under section 12(3) has been violated are questions of fact, which can be decided by the Court only after evidence is recorded. It may be pointed that section 25-A of IRO 1969 has a wider scope and the workman can seek redress under said section not only to enforce the right guaranteed to him under IRO 1969, but he can invoke section 25-A to enforce the right guaranteed to him under any other law for the time being in force.
7. In view of above legal position, I do not feel it desirable or proper to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court in exercise of the suo motu revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal. The applicant would be at liberty to reagitate this point raised by him in this Tribunal before the Labour Court at the time of final arguments or in appeal before Tribunal unprejudiced by the observation made by this Tribunal in this order.