Muhammad Hasan has filed the instant appeal from the decision of the Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad dated 16th-of June, 1992, whereby his grievance petition was dismissed on the ground that since he was employed in connection with the regal functions of the State, the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable to him.
2. The appellant was working as an Assistant Octroi Superintendent in the Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad. A tangible decrease occurred in the collection of octroi. An inquiry commenced to find out reasons for the loss. As a reaction to and protest against the mode of the inquiry, the appellant submitted his resignation to the Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad, respondent No.1 on 10th of September, 1986. He was suspended on 22nd of September, 1986. Subsequently, however, the resignation tendered by him was accepted by the Mayor vide letter, dated 24th of September, 1986.
The appellant alleging that his resignation was involuntary as a result of duress, filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division, Faisalabad. This appeal was dismissed on 24th of November, 1986. He preferred a second appeal before the Secretary to the Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department. This appeal too was dismissed vide order, dated 21st of June, 1988. On 29th of September, 1988 he filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for setting aside the orders, dated 24th of September, 1986, 24th of November, 1986 and 21st of June, 1988 and for his re-instatement in service by declaring his resignation as the result of victimization, enmity and duress.
3. The grievance petition was resisted by the respondents according to whom--- the appellant tendered his resignation voluntarily of his own accord. They also raised a legal objection that the appellant did not fall within the ambit of a workman and was incompetent to file the grievance petition.
4. The learned Labour Court upheld the legal objection of the respondents and vide its impugned decision dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant without discussing the merits of the case. Hence this appeal.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned Labour Court held that since the appellant was engaged in connection with the levy and collection of taxes which was a regal and sovereign function of the State, he would be deemed to be employed in the administration of the State and could not be treated as a workman. It relied on Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad v. Asghar Ali Chishty and another (Appeal No.FD-494/90-Punjab) decided by this Tribunal on 17th of October, 1990 and Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad v. Nawab Bibi and others 1992 PLC 398 decided by the Lahore High Court which full support its view. It has been held in the precedent cases that persons engaged by a Municipal Committee to perform functions of Government which were regal or sovereign in nature and stood delegated to the Committee under law, are excluded from the category of workmen engaged in an industrial or a commercial establishment and, therefore, they are incompetent to invoke the provisions of either the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 or the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. No authority to the contrary has been cited-by learned counsel for the appellant. 1, therefore, do not find any valid ground for interference with the impugned decision.
6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
H.B.T./763/Lb.P. Appeal dismissed