DECISION ' This is an appeal against the order, dated 9-12-1990, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, I at Karachi, whereby grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated with back benefits.
2. I have heard MrAli Amjad, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr.S.P. Lodhi, learned representative for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. The admitted facts appear to be that the respondent was employee of the appellants. He was charge-sheeted for certain acts of misconduct on 15-8-1988 and 21-8-1988. A domestic enquiry was held in which he was found guilty and was therefore dismissed from service vide order, dated 28-11-1988. He filed appeal to the Chairman of the appellants which was rejected by order, dated 20-5-1989. Thereafter he served grievance notice on 10-8-1989 and failing to get redress filed grievance petition on 3-9-1989 which was resisted by the appellants on the ground that it was not legally maintainable and that it was barred by limitation and also that respondent had been rightly dismissed after due enquiry.
4. MrAli Amjad, learned Advocate for the appellants, has mainly raised legal objection that the grievance petition was not maintainable. The appellants, viz. Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (PCSIR) is a Body Corporate established under the 'Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Act,1973 (XXX of 1973) (hereinafter referred to as the `Act'). It is, thus, a 'Statutory Body' run by and under the authority of the Federal Government. Under section 18 of the Act 'the Federal Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.' Under section 19 of the Act 'the Council may, with the previous sanction of the Federal Government, make such regulations, not inconsistent with this Act or the rules made thereunder, as may, in its opinion, be necessary or expedient for the achievement of its aims and objects or for the performance of its functions.'
5. In exercise of its power under section 19 of the Act the appellants made Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research Employees (Service) Regulations, 1981 with the prior sanction of the Federal Government. Under Regulation 26 'the employees shall, for the purpose of conduct/discipline, be governed by the relevant rules framed by the Council.' In exercise of powers under Regulation 26 the appellant council framed the Conduct & Discipline Rules of PCSIR which provide for the penalties, grounds for penalties, the procedure of enquiry and appeal.
6. Mr.Ali Amjad contends that these rules of conduct and discipline are `Statutory Rules' and even if the appellant is considered to be an 'industrial' or `commercial' establishment still the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Ordinance') would not be applicable to the employees of the appellant in view of the First Proviso to section 1(4) of the Ordinance which reads as under:- "(4) It applies to --- (a)-----------------
(b) .
(c)
' Provided that nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to industrial and commercial establishment carried on by or under the authority of the Federal or any Provincial Government, where statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workmen employed therein."
7. What are 'Statutory Rules' has been discussed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Sardar Muhammad Asghar v. Mst. Safia Begum and another PLD 1976 Supreme Court 435.
Their Lordships held "statutory instrument means a document which is legislative made by a rule- making authority in exercise of a statutory power. Precisely it is the exercise of the delegated legislative power by the rule-making authority which distinguishes a statutory rule from purely executive and administrative instructions. A rule requires to be expressed with precision and yet to possess generality so as to be capable of application to a large number of cases. Nonetheless the hall-mark of statutory rules is its legislative character and is made by rule-making authority in exercise of its delegated legislative power."
8. This subject has also been dealt with in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Edition, Volume 36; Para 723), wherein it is observed:-- "that subordinate legislation is legislation made by a person or body other than the sovereign in Parliament by virtue of powers conferred either by statute or by legislation which is itself made under statutory powers. It is frequently referred to as delegated legislation in the former case and sub-delegated legislation in the latter. Much of it is made by executive authorities, the granting of powers to whom was long ago accepted by Parliament as inevitable in cases of national emergency, where speedier remedies are called for than it is itself able to provide and, since Parliament has neither the time nor, in all cases, sufficiently expert knowledge itself to formulate all the matters of detail with which modern legislation must be concerned, has now come to be regarded as a day to day inevitability." According to Halsbury (para 724), "the names given to instruments of a legislative character made in the exercise of delegated powers are various. Chief amongst them are proclamations, Orders in Council, orders of Council, orders, regulations, rules, schemes, directions, by-laws and warrants. According to Craies on Statute Law (6th Edition page 298), "delegated legislation could be classified under two main heads: (a) Statutory instruments,
(b) By-laws or regulations made--(i) by authorities concerned with local government; (ii) by public corporations or societies clothed with statutory or common law powers."
9. In the case of Province of West Pakistan v. Din Muhammad PLD 1964 Supreme Court 21, their Lordships had held that administrative instructions contained in memorandum issued by authority competent to alter or amend rules can be as effective and binding as statutory rules.
10. Judging the Disciplinary Rules framed by the appellants from standard laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court and in Halsbury's Laws of England, they cannot but be considered as 'Statutory Rules'. The question as to whether the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was applicable to the appellants was also considered by this Tribunal in the case Muhammad Aslam v.
P.C.S.I.R. 1980 PLC 1034 and it was held that Standing Orders Ordinance does not apply to Pakistan Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and, therefore grievance petition under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969, by the employees of the Council was not competent.
11. It may also be pointed that section 3-A was added to the aforesaid Act by Ordinance No,XLII of 1984 which provides that 'nothing contained in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 shall apply to or in relation to the Council or any of the officers, advisers and employees appointed by it."
12. Mr. S.P. Lodhi, learned Representative for the respondent contended that even if I.R.O. Was not applicable still Standing Order 12(3) specifically allowed an aggrieved employee to seek relief under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 therefore the employee could seek relief under section 25-A if aggrieved in spite of the inapplicability of the I.R.O. Under section 3-A. This contention of Mr. S.P.
Lodhi was conceded to by Mr. Ali Ahmed but he contended even Standing Orders Ordinance was not applicable to the appellants and its employees in view of the proviso to section 1(4) of the Ordinance which fact I have already discussed above.
13. In view of the legal position that neither Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 nor West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 was applicable to the appellant or to its employees the grievance petition under Section 25-A was not maintainable. The.
Appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the learned Labour Court is set aside as it had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition.