1. The documents filed be Kept in the file.
2. Compliance of the office objections if the petition is admitted.
3. Petitioner Syed Khursheed Haider has invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this Court against the decision dated 25.11.1991 given by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be mentioned as the Tribunal) in Appeal No.KAR-501/1991.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner was in the employment of respondent No.3 Urdu Academy Sind as Accountant since 9.2.1955. On 10.6.1986, the petitioner was removed from service. He challenged his removal from service in the Labour Court by filing grievance application under section 25-A of IRO which was dismissed on 14.7.1987. Petitioner challenged dismissal of his grievance application in the Tribunal by filing an appeal which was also dismissed. Petitioner took the matter to the Supreme Court of Pakistan which granted him leave to appeal and which stayed operation of the order of the Tribunal to the extent of back benefits. Respondent No.3 was called upon to allow the petitioner to resume duty but he was not given any work. In this state of affairs services of the petitioner were again terminated on 31.10.1989 on the ground of his having attained the age of 60 years viz the date of superannuation. The petitioner challenged termination of his services dated 31.10.1989 in grievance application No.240/91 in the III Labour Court at Karachi. Under an order dated 10.11.1991? The Labour Court dismissed the grievance application after taking the view that strength of workers in the respondent No.3 remained less than 20 and it was registered under Shops & Establishment Ordinance and the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment(Standing Orders) Ordinance were not applicable to the respondent No.3 and that termination of employment of the petitioner on attaining the age of 60 years was not tenable in law, had Standing Orders Ordinance applied to his case. After dismissal of the grievance application, the petitioner moved Appeal No.KAR 501 of 1991 in the Tribunal, which has been dismissed under the impugned decision. Hence this Constitution petition.
5. We have heard petitioner Syed Khursheed Haider in person. The petitioner contended that his services can not be .Terminated on the ground of his having attained the age of superannuation because such at was unwarranted by law and that his grievance application under section 25-A of IRO was maintainable in law and the same should have been accepted and that termination of his services was malafide because of the fact that he had challenged an earlier order dated 10.6.1986 about his removal from service upto the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
6. According to Section 25-A of IRO the petitioner can invoke jurisdiction of the Labour Court in respect of any of his guaranteed and secured rights. Admittedly, services of the petitioner with the respondent No.3 were not governed by any statute. He could claim protection of Standing Orders Ordinance if said Ordinance applied to the establishment of respondent No.3. The Labour Court after discussing evidence recorded by it came to the conclusion that strength of employees in establishment of the respondent No.1 remained less than 20. Learned Labour Tribunal under the impugned decision came to the conclusion that the petitioner had not been able to substantiate his allegation that the respondent No.3 had more than 20 workers and that the Babul Islam Press and Urdu Academy Sind were separately registered under the Shops and Establishment Ordinance.
Such findings by the Tribunal can not be set aside by this Court in this Constitution petition in view of the observations made in the case of Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd Vs. Aijaz Ahmed Abbasi and another (1990 SCM R 1713).
7. Since Standing Orders Ordinance does not apply to the establishment of the respondent No.3, hence the petitioner has no secured or guaranteed right to continue in service of the respondent No.3, after his services were terminated on 11.10.1989. In absence of any secured or guaranteed right, the petitioner could not have invoked jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 25-A of IRO. In this view of the matter, no case is made out for invoking constitutional jurisdiction in this case. The petition is therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs.