' The circumstances in which this petition has been filed are as follows:--
2. The respondent No, 2 was a workman petitioner. On 2.2-1974, he was served with a cha a reply there to on 5-2-1973. Ad enquiry was order but the respondent No, 2 remained absent. Ho witnesses were examined on that day. But, on informed by the petitioners through a registered let to cross- examine the witnesses, if be so wanted witnesses in defense. The respondent No, 2 turn totally declined to participate in the proceeding written reply again on that day. The Enquiry dismissal and he was dismissed from service on the Report. The respondent No, 2 never address to his employer, but directly filed an application Industrial Relations Ordinance before the Junior L The objections filed by the petitioners, inter alia, jurisdiction of the Court. The application came to The finding was that the petitioners did not empl and therefore the provisions of Standing Rod Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employ Ordinance, 1968, did not apply, and, as a result, t of the respondent No, 2.
The Junior Labor Court, missal as termination from service, for which one m was allowed in addition to the leave salary and respondent No, 2 might have been entitled.
3. The respondent No, 2 took an appeal to found that the provisions of the Standing Orders in the circumstances of the case, and, as the in he was entitled to re-instatement with all the back which has been challenged by the petitioners.
4. The order of the Labor Court in re of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commerce Orders)
Ordinance, 1968, though not properly re to exception, in view of the additional evidence, which was recorded. That shows that, apart from the number of workers maintained by the petitioners, there were some other employees through contractors working with the petitioners, as deposed to by Rana Fazlur Rehman, Social Security Officer, Karachi. The only question, therefore, that remains to be examined is, whether, in the absence of a grievance procedure, the application filed by the respondent No, 2 before the Junior Labor Court was maintainable at all. It is an admitted position that the matter was taken directly to the Labour Court on 20-3-1973. There is also no dispute that the dismissal of the respondent No, 2 took place on 13-2-1973.
5. Subsection (6) of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, dispenses with the procedure prescribed under subsections (1) to (4) in regard to the workers aggrieved by the termination of their employment as a result of retrenchment, dismissal, discharge, lay out, etc. Not earlier than two months preceding the commencement of the Industrial Relations (Amendment)
Ordinance, 1972. This amending Ordinance was promulgated on the 10th of November, 1972. The dismissal of the respondent No, 2 does not fall within two months, preceding the promulgation of the said Ordinance. I respectfully agree with the view taken in the case of Karachi Shipyards & Engineering Works Lid , Karachi v. Second Sind Labour Court (1) in which it was held that the concession contained in subsection (6) of section 25-A was limited in nature and for the period specified therein. The case of the respondent No, 2 is not covered up under the scheme of subsection (6) of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. Thus, the Labour Court would have no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter, as held by me earlier in the case of Karachi Development Authority v. Presiding Officer, II Sind Labour Court, Karachi and others (2). Under the circumstances, the impugned order is not in the exercise of lawful authority.
6. In the result, the impugned order is quashed, and the petition is allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
(1) PLD 1973 Kar. 719 (2) PLD 1975 Kar. 716