Prior to 1960 the then Government of West Pakistan had established a department known as Small Dams Organization (hereinafter called the Organization). The main function of the organization was to construct small dams for the purpose of irrigation to improve agriculture in, West Pakistan.
On the establishment of West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation (hereinafter called the Corporation), a body corporate under section 3 of the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance (No. XX`' of 1961), the organization was trans--ferred to the Corporation. In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 8 of the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation (Dissolution) Order, 1972 (P. G. No. 5 of 1972), the President transferred the organization to the Province of Punjab will. Effect from 1-2-1973 and the Governor of Punjab transferred the organization to the Irrigation and Power Department, Government of the Punjab, with effect from the same date.
Ghulam Rabbani (hereinafter called the respondent) joined as a Patwaria in the organization which was then under the Department Establishment of the Corporation known as 'Soan Valley Lah Improvement Project. Talagang', with effect from 5-4-1965. The actual appointment letter was issued by the Project Director (hereinafter called petitioner No. 2) who, i^ is a common ground, was competent to employ persons for and on behalf of the Corporation. The respondent was discharged from service by the Executive Engineer. Chichali Dam Division, on account of his absence from duty with effect from 10-3-1970, vide order dated 12-6-1970. Aggrieved by that order the respondent filed appeal against his discharge which was, rr jected by petitioner No. 2, vide his order, communicated vide his letter d; red 15-7-1970. The respondent then filed further appeal to the Chairman,. West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation who rejected it, in March, 1971.
The respondent also approached Martial Law Sub-Administrator, Section 1, Zone `C' without success, After exhausting departmental remedies the respondent filed an application? Under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance (No. XXIII of 1969 as amended), on about--10-7- 1973, before the Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi. The respondent stated that he submitted a number of appeals and representations to the authorities concerned and received the last letter, dated 2-6-1973, wherein, the respondent was informed that his case for re-instatement could not be considered and as such the respondent having felt aggrieved by that--decision bad filed application. The Junior Labour Court accepted that application of the respondent on 21-7-1973 and held that the order of discharge/dismissal bad been passed by the authority concerned in the-- absence of the respondent without issuing him any notice or charge-sheet and without giving him any opportunity to defend himself and, therefore, held it to be against the law and rules on the subject and consequently set aside it. The respondent was re-instated by the Junior Labour Court in service with all benefits. It is significant to mention that on the pleadings --of the parties learned Junior Labour Court attended to the following two issues, namely, (i) whether the petition was time-barred and (ii) whether the dismissal of the petitioner (present respondent) was justified in law. His finding on both these points was in favour of the present respondent.
The Project Director, petitioner No. 2 filed appeal against it in Punjab Labor Court No. 11, Lahore, Camp Rawalpindi (hereinafter called the Appellate Court) which was dismissed in default, on 28-1-
74. The petitioner No. 2 filed an application for restoration of the appeal in which a plea was taken that the officers concerned bad learnt about the date of hearing very late and while they were proceeding to appear in Court, on 28-1-1974, they could not reach in time due to some accident in their conveyance. On these facts it was pleaded that the absence of petitioner No. 2 was due to the circumstances beyond his control and, therefore, the appeal be restored. The Appellate Court did not accept the factual version as pleaded before it and held that the plea raised was false and dismissed the restoration application, on 21-5-1974. --- The present writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has been filed in this Court by (i)--Government of Punjab through Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore, and (it) Project Director, Small Dams Organization, Rawalpiadi against the aforesaid proceedings and orders of the Labour Courts.
3. The first point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the application filed by the respondent before the Junior Labour Court was barred by limitation. At this stage it is necessary to reproduce the finding of the Junior Labour Court which reads as follows :- "The petitioner was admittedly dismissed from service in April, 1970. Since it was case of ex-parte proceeding he made representations against the order of dismissal before different authorities competent to grant him relief and the last letter in this respect was sent to hint on 7-6-1973 whereby he was informed that his appeal has been rejected. Since the petitioner bad been continuously and persistently agitating his grievance before different authorities and he was finaly informed in June, 1973 that there was no life in his case and that his appeal has been rejected I feel that his grievance to move a Junior Labour Court has arisen only when be was totally disappointed with the verdict of his departmental authorities. Although this petition has been brought in at a very belated stage yet I feel that the petitioner was quite vigilant and diligent in pursuing his cause and therefore I hold that the petition should not be thrown away as time-barred."
The law relevant for filing an application of the type as is involved in this case is contained in section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, which as added by the Labour Laws Amendment Ordinance 1X of 1972 on 13-4-1972 originally, reads as follows "25-A. Redress of individual grievance.-(1) A worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any Law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing either himself or through his Shop Steward or Trade Union, within three months of the day on which the cause of such grievance arises.
(2) Where a worker himself arings his grievance to the notice of the employer, the employer shall, within fifteen days of the grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision in writing to the worker. ,(3) Where a worker brings his grievance to the notice of his employer through his Shop Steward or Trade Union, the employer shall, within seven days of the grievance being brought to his notice, communicate his decision is writing to the Shop Steward or, as the case may be, the Trade Union.
(4) If the employer fails to communicate a decision within the period specified in subsection (2) or, as, the case may be, subsection (3) or if the worker is dissatisfied with such decision, the worker or the Shop Steward may take the matter to his Trade Union or the Labour Court, or, as the case may be, the Trade Union may take the matter -to the Labour Court, and, where the matter is taken to the Labour Court, it shall give an award within twenty days from the date of the matter being brought before it as if such matter were an industrial dispute.
'Provided that a worker who desires to so take the matter to the Labour Court shall do so within a period of two months from the day of the communication of the employer, or, as the case may be, from the expiry of the period mentioned in subsection (2) or subsection (3) as the case may be.
(5) In adjudicating and determining a grievance under subsection (4), the Labour Court shall go into all the facts of the case and pass such order as may be just and proper in the circumstances of the case.".
Further amendments in this section were made by the Industrial Relations .;(Amendment)
Ordinance, 1972 (XLVIII of 1972) which is printed on PLD 1973 Central Statutes, p. 95 and Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973 $Act XXIX of 1973) which is printed on page 268 of the same book whereby further additional remedy to approach Junior Labour Court was also provided. According to subsection (6) of section 25-A, which was added by Act XXIX of 1973, any worker aggrieved by the termination of his employment as a result of termination, dismissal, discharge, lay-off, lock-out, or otherwise not earlier than two months preceding the commencement of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Ordinance, 1972 (which came into force on 10-11-1972) may, within a period of two months from the commencement of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973, or the termination of the employment, whichever is later, either himself or through his Shop Steward or Trade Union take the matter directly to a Junior Labour Court having jurisdiction in the .Area in which the establishment is situated.
The question of limitation has not been examined by the Junior Labour Court with reference to the aforesaid subsections or any other relevant-provision of law. It appears that the Junior Labour Court considered the question of limitation just on general grounds without reference to the legal provisions applicable on the subject. The failure to attend to the law on that the learned Junior Labour Courtas to be without lawful authority and of no legal consequence against the petitioners.
I hold accordingly and quash the said order for this reason. The result of my this finding will be that the case will have to be remanded to be Junior Labour Court for fresh decision in accordance with law on the subject under consideration. I order accordingly.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners wanted to argue that even otherwise the Junior Labour Court bad no jurisdiction to attend to the matter involved in this case inasmuch as Ghulam Rabbani respondent was neither a workman and nor was he working in any industry. A question was also raised as to who was the employer of the workman. Effort was made to argue that the respondent was a civil servant and not an employee of a corporate body. Similarly it was argued that the view taken by the Junior Labour Court on merits was also not warranted by the facts and circumstances and the record relevant in that respect. As I have no intention to adjudicate upon these points myself and nor do I propose to substitute my own views on these matters I think the best course would be to let these matters remain, open for being raised before the Junior Labour Court.
Learned counsel for the contest--ing respondent submitted that the question of jurisdiction was not raised by the petitioner No. 2 before the Junior Labour Court and therefore the same should not be allowed to be raised for the first time in the course of writ jurisdiction. On my part, as is self- evident I am not allowing the petitioners to raise this point in the course of writ jurisdiction and all I am doing is that I am keeping this matter open and if any prayer is made before the Junior Labour Court for raising the point of jurisdiction it will be up to that Court to attend to the same in accordance with law. My order neither allows nor did allow this point and rather leave it open for the Junior Labour Court to deal with this request itself. This clarification should not create any misgivings between the parties.
5. For the above reasons, the writ petition is accepted with the afore--mentioned observations. In the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs. s. Q.