DECISION ' These are eleven connected appeals filed by Divisional Engineer Transmission (VHF) and P.T.C.L.
Through General Manager STR-I, Karachi. The appeals are directed against the order passed by Labour Court No,1, Karachi allowing eleven petitions of the workers for reinstatement and back benefits.
2. The eleven respondents were P.T.C.L. Workers to work as linemen, drivers and technicians. They were recruited by P.T.C.L. Corporation in the year 1994/95 as temporary workmen against permanent post and they had served for a period extending from six months to two years in different posts. These workers were terminated on receiving instructions from the Regional Office that since they had been appointed when there was a ban on fresh appointment, their recruitment was irregular and the services of these workers be terminated to rectify the mistake that had been made. No show-cause notice had been issued to the workers nor were they heard in respect of their termination. The workers filed grievance petitions under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Before Labour Court No, 1 but without recording evidence these petitions were initially rejected on an interlocutory application made by the employers under Order 7, Rule 11, Civil Procedure Code read with section 151 of the same Code. It was contended that these workers of P.T.C.L. Could not file petition under the I.R.O. And that Standing Orders Ordinance because they were governed by Special Efficiency and Discipline Rules framed by P.T.C.L. These rules were not produced nor was it shown that these were the Statutory Rules over riding the Standing Orders Ordinance.
3. The workers moved appeals against the order of Labour Court No, 1 rejecting their petitions. The Appellate Tribunal on 24-10-1996 accepted these appeals on the ground that such summary action was not contemplated by the I.R.O. And the Civil Procedure Code was not applicable in matters before the Labour Court in to but only such orders and rules were applicable which were procedural in nature, for the purpose of adjudication and determination of the dispute involved, under section 36(2) of the I.R.O. The case was remanded for re-trial before the same Court to be decided on merits after recording evidence and hearing both the parties. The learned Labour Court No, 1 then recorded evidence as directed and heard the parties at length. The learned Labour Court allowed all the grievance petitions and directed the employers to reinstate the workmen in service with full back benefits. These orders were passed by the Labour Court holding that the grievance petitions were maintainable and the Labour Court had jurisdiction to entertain them. Against this order the P.T.C.L. Authorities have preferred these appeals before the Appellate Tribunal on the plea that being civil servants working under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, they could not move the Labour Court under the I.R.O. And Standing Orders but they could only file appeal in the Services Tribunal if they had any grievances against their employers.
4. Mr. Niaz Ahmed Khan, Advocate argued before this Tribunal that these workers were civil servants and even the High Court could not hear Constitution petition filed by the workers under Article 212(3) of the Constitution. P.T.C.L. Are successors of Telegraph & Telephone Department, Government of Pakistan. Under the I.R.O. Section 1(3)(b) Telegraph & Telephone Department workers have been shown to be an exception to the exclusion clause, of persons working in the administration of State. Even otherwise under the Civil Servants Act, 1973, section 2(b) civil servant means a person who is a member of an All Pakistan Service or who holds a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation but does not include a person who is a worker or workman as defined in the Factories Act, 1934 or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923. Under a Schedule to Workmen's Compensation Act, section 2(1)(n) clause (xiii) any employee in any occupation ordinarily involving outdoor work in the Post and Telegraph Department is to be considered as a worker. The Services Tribunal, therefore, will not entertain any petition or appeal of Telegraph & Telephone workers nor grant them any relief. Their grievance petitions under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Would, therefore, appear to be maintainable before the Labour Courts as workers. Even otherwise the enactment including the servants of Statutory Corporation under the Federal Government as civil servants is yet in the process and the Bill has been introduced in the Central Legislative Assembly though it has not reached the final stage of consent of the President.
5. The only other point referred to by the appellants is the proviso to Order 1 of West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance No, VI of 1968 which reads as under:-- "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."
6. The learned Advocate for the workers had pointed out that there are no such Statutory Rules of Efficiency and Discipline for workers of P.T.C.L. Which had received approval of the Federal Government and no such rules have been produced in these petitions. In the absence of any Statutory Rules, the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 would be applicable to the workers, and under Order 15(4), service of any worker whether permanent or temporary cannot be terminated unless the workman concerned is informed of the misconduct and the workman is found guilty of misconduct after charge-sheet and a regular enquiry. In the present case the workmen were not even heard nor were any show- cause notices issued. The termination would, therefore, appear to be against the principles of natural justice and in violation of "audi alterim partem".
7. The termination of the P.T.C.L. Workers is being justified on the ground that the initial orders of appointment were issued during the period of ban and the authority passing wrong orders could withdraw them or cancel them; but in these cases these orders have been given effect to and the respondents have been worked against permanent posts from six months to two years; once the order takes effect and is acted upon, the power to recede or withdraw that order ceases, and even issuing authority cannot cancel it. The test for determination, whether there is locus penitential or not, is to ascertain whether a decisive step has been taken in pursuance of the earlier A order which is sought to be recalled or rescinded. If the order has been acted upon and has been made effective, then it cannot subsequently be cancelled by the issuing authority under section 21 of the General Clauses Act. The Regional Office could not, therefore, direct termination of the services of these workers merely because they were appointed during a period of ban. The order of the reinstatement of these workers passed by the Labour Court, therefore, appears to be reasonable and proper and I can see no ground for interference.
8. These appeals are accordingly dismissed and the orders of the lab our Court are maintained.