' By this Constitutional petition the General Manager/S.A.A., Pakistan Ordnance Factories, Wah Cantonment (hereinafter called the petitioner), has assailed the judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, dated the 14th October, 1986, whereby it was held that by virtue of the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968, the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, were applicable to the Pakistan Ordnance Factories, Wah Cantonment.
2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to this petition are that Ashiq Hussain, the respondent No. 1, a Machine Operator in the Wah Ordnance Factories, was dismissed from service under the orders of the petitioners dated 14-4-1985 on the charges that he had obtained the service by concealing the fact that he was convicted under section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment in a case registered vide F.I.R. No.85 of 1959, dated 23-7-1959, and had excited his co-workers to proceed on strike and took active part in the said unlawful strike from 10-3-1985 to 13-3-1985. Respondent No. 1 opposed his dismissal before the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, through a grievance petition under the Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Labour Court accepted the grievance petition and set aside the impugned order of his dismissal by directing the petitioner for reinstatement of respondent No. 1 in service. This judgment of the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court, was appealed against by the petitioner before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which maintained the order of the Labour Court. Being aggrieved of the decision of the Labour forums, the petitioner has brought this Constitutional petition claiming that, since the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was not applicable to the Wah Ordnance Factories and their employees, the grievance petition before the Labour Court was not maintainable.
3. The respondent No. 1 has contested the present Constitutional petition contending that, since he was a 'worker', by virtue of the Standing Order 18 of the aforesaid Ordinance, he was entitled to bring his grievance before the Labour Court established under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
4. I have heard the parties through their learned counsel at length. It is clear from clause (a) of subsection (3) of section 1 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969), that Ordnance Factories are excluded from the purview thereof. For facility of reference the said clause (a) is reproduced below:--
(3) It shall not apply to any person employed--
(a) in the Police or any of the Defence Services of Pakistan or any services or installations connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan, including an Ordnance Factory maintained by the Federal Government;
5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 does not contest the aforesaid proposition that the provisions of section 1(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, explicitly exclude the Ordnance Factories from the application of the said Ordinance, but he was of the view that, since the respondent No. 1 was a 'worker' within the meaning of clause (xxviii) of section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the respondent No. 1 was eligible to bring his grievance before the Labour Court under the provisions of Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, read with Standing Order 18 thereof.
In support of his contentions, he referred to the case of Security Paper Limited v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal PLD 1988 Supreme Court 180). He also referred to a case decided by a Division Bench of the Peshawar High Court reported at 1995 PLC 738 (Mumtaz Ali v. Chairman, N.-W.F.P.
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Peshawar and 2 others).
6. Standing Order 12 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, provides that employment of a workman shall not be terminated without following the, procedure specified therein. On the other hand, procedure for agitating his grievance, including termination from service is brought before the concerned Court under the provisions of Standing Order 18 of the said Ordinance. There is, however, no denial that said Standing Order was omitted by virtue of the Labour Laws Ordinance, 1972. Obviously, after repeal of Standing Order 18 (ibid), a grievance petition was not maintainable under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and a worker or workman could only agitate his grievance- under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, but in the present case, as stated above, Wah Ordnance Factories stood specifically excluded from the application of 'the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and thereby no petition could be made to a Court established thereunder.
7. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that Wah Ordnance Factories were part of the essential services and even on that score the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was not applicable thereto. In this connection, reference was made to section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, where under every employment under the Federal Government is subject to the provisions of the said Act. The Act can also be extended by the Federal Government to every other class or classes of employment by a notification in the official Gazette. Although no such notification was brought on the record but there is no denial, as specified in the Rules of Business, 1973, that the Wah Ordnance Factories are under the direct control of the Federal Government through Defence Production Division. Nevertheless, as held by the Supreme Court in Pakistan Television Corporation v. M. Babar Zaman and others (1989 SCM R 1549), merely applicability of provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) to a worker or class of workers, an aggrieved worker or workman of such organization will not be debarred to approach the Labour Court unless there is something repugnant or inconsistent thereto in the Labour Laws. In the instant case, the petitioner was in employment of an Ordinance Factory for wIlich specific exclusion has been made under the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, But even if it is presumed that a grievance petition can be moved under the Standing Orders, notwithstanding that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, provides protection to employment of any organization, a grievance petition of its employee shall have to be moved to a Court established under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which is specifically not applicable to the employees of the Ordnance Factories. Consequently, the Labour Courts established under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, shall have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the grievance of the employees of the Wah Ordnance Factories.
8. The same principle applies to the Wah Ordnance Factories which are also under the control of Ministry of Defence. Hence, by virtue of clause (a) of subsection (3) of section 1 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, the provisions of the Ordinance would not apply to the Wah Ordnance Factories nor the Courts thereunder can determine the disputes relating to the service of the employees of such factories.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Punjab Labour Court and Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal had wrongly assumed jurisdiction for determining the vires of dismissal of respondent from service of the Wah Ordnance Factories. Hence, the orders, dated the 19th June, 1986, and the 14th October, 1986, passed by the Punjab Labour Court No. 6 and the Punjab Appellate Tribunal respectively are set aside declaring the same to be illegal and without lawful authority.
10, Before parting with the present case, it will, however, not In out of place to point out that it is the consistent claim of the respondent No.1 that he was not given a proper opportunity to place his grievance before the concerned Authorities, in particular that he had not concealed the factum of his conviction by a Criminal Court before joining the employment of the petitioner nor he had taken part in the alleged illegal strike. According to him, he had passed certain examination entitling him service of the petitioner from jail which fact establishes his bona fide. The respondent No. 1 in this connection, without prejudice to the result of this Constitutional petition, may, if so advised, bring a representation before the petitioner explaining his point of view and the petitioner should, in accordance with law, give due consideration to such representation. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with no orders as to costs,