DECISION ' This is an application invoking suo motu jurisdiction of this Tribunal praying that legality, propriety and correctness of the order, dated 28-5-1991, passed by learned Sindh Labour Court No, VI at Hyderabad in Application No, 73 of 1991, be examined.
2. I have heard Mr. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Races M.
Mushtaq, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the relevant papers.
3. Admittedly the applicant was Cane Procurement Officer employed by the respondent whose sea-vices were terminated on 6-1-1991. He was ordered to vacate the premises under Standing Order 16(1). Admittedly the applicant has filed grievance petition against the order of termination which is resisted by the respondent inter alia on the ground that he is not a workman. This impugned order has been passed by the learned Labour Court in that grievance application. The provision of Standing Order 16 would come into operation only after it is decided by the Labour Court that the applicant is a workman. As pointed above the respondents are disputing his status as a workman and this question is sub judice before learned Labour Court. If the learned Labour Court holds the applicant not to be workman, then he would be out of Court so far as grievance petition is concerned but at the same time he cannot be ejected under Standing Order 16 but normal law with regard to licensor and licensee would prevail. The impugned order of the learned Labour Court, based on Standing Order 16 is premature without deciding the main question as to the status of the applicant, and is therefore set aside.