' The revision petition is directed against two orders having been rendered by the learned Labour Court, Rawalpindi, on 2-9-1998 and 3-11-1998, rejecting the application submitted by the establishment (Fauji Fertilizer Company), respondent before the Labour Court in the proceedings of the grievance petition, having been filed under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by an ex-employee, Mr. Muhammad Abbas Malik, retired Lt.-Colonel.
2. The respondent, as he pleads, has started his career with effect from 21-1-1992 in the Procurement Department of the Fauji Fertilizer Company Limited, Rawalpindi, and he was posted in the Department of Industrial Relations and Welfare on 21-3-1994. He states to have been serving the Organization a Law Officer primarily, in liaison with an under control of the Legal Advisor/Manager Human Resources. He was ousted from service on 3-7-1998, allegedly without any orders passed in writing by the competent authority. Obviously, he felt aggrieved. He had on 27-8-1998 recourse to the learned Labour Court, Rawalpindi, by making a petition under section 25-A, as already said, after having stately served the establishment with the grievance notice.
3. In the course of the proceedings, on 23-9-1998, an application was made by the respondents before the learned lower Court, with a prayer that the grievance petition be summarily rejected, as envisaged by the provisions of Order. 7, rule 11, C.P.C. It was resisted and replied by the petitioner before the Labour Court on 7-10-1998. He maintains that the question of his status whether, he is a workman or not is mixed question of law and fact, which can be decided only on appraisal of the evidence to be led by the parties in that behalf. This plea was upheld by the learned lower Court, which ,was presided over first by Ch. Muhammad Ashraf, Additional District & Sessions Judge, who was succeeded by Mr. Muhammad Gulzar Ahmad Butt, who endorsed the view point of his predecessor, without findertaking any discussion of his own order, dated 2-9-1998, rendered in brief by Mr. Muhammad Ashraf, has been quoted in extenso by Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Butt, while disposing of the prayer petition of the establishment finally on 3-11-1998. Learned counsel representing the organization has assailed both these orders, even the previous one, as a measure of abundant caution, as submitted by him, although the previous order having been passed by the learned Court below in ex parte fashion, on hearing the learned counsel for the grievance- petitioner, without issuance of notice to the establishment and without hearing its counsel or representative need not have been assailed. The grievance- petitioner, who is respondent before this Court, contends that the initial order, dated 2-9-1998 was the basic one, and as it -was not challenged in any higher forum by the company, it would be deemed to have attained finality. He is obviously working there. The learned Judge, who passed the order, subsequently on 3-11-1998, also appears to have been swayed by the finding/opinion aforesaid, although he should have appraised and examined the, rival plea and contentions, before coming -to a conclusion, as regards maintainability of the application under Order 7 rule 11, C.P.C., but he has not applied his own mind respecting the issue in controversy.
4. Provisions of C.P.C. and the spirit of the Code are generally taken into consideration by Court, while discussing and deciding questions of civil nature, even though the matters may not strictly fall within the jurisdiction of the civil Courts, and pertain to other proceedings of Courts of similar nature, as Family Courts, Rent Controller Courts, Labour Courts, etc. Mr. Gulzar Ahmad Butt has strangely observed repeatedly in the course of the impugned order, dated 3-11-1998 that his predecessor Mr. Muhammad Ashraf having already adjudicated upon or made determination of the issue/question under consideration, the same cannot be re-opened, although Mr. Muhammad Ashraf Chaudhry had passed the order, as already observed, in ex parte manner, without issuance of notice to the authorities of the company and without hearing them, and final determination in that behalf had to be made by the Court below after having heard both sides in that regard. He just adopted the view expressed by his predecessor to the effect that the issue could only be resolved on analysis and appreciation of the evidence of the parties (in regard to the questions of status of the employee, whether or not he could be regarded as a workman). When Mr. Gulzar Butt says that his predecessor had already determined the issue and he is legally precluded or debated from reopening it, he obviously falls in error, and such a view cannot manifestly be affirmed or endorsed.
5. I would be the 1st man to accept the contention that the provision of Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. cannot be invoked in matters pending before labour forums. Just a principle has been enunciated and the provisions do not lay down any substantive law, nor can the same be treated as exhaustive or all- embracing on the subject, as has been pronounced by the Humble High Court in the case reported as 1992 M LD 225 (Lahore). It would be an exercise in futility and sheer wastage of precious time of the Court, if the parties are called upon to lead evidence and the Court takes into hands. the flask of taking down evidence for determination of an aspect of the case, which is so vivid and apparent on the face of it. According to the employee's own showing; as also his pleadings, so expressly incorporated in his grievance petition, he was an important functionary, holding a job and performing duties on a widely different and highly raised pedestal, and by no stretch of imagination could he claim to be a worker or a menial of no significance. True, mere nomenclature of a post or designation of its incumbent would not be determine the exact nature of the assignment but certainly the same will be relevant, even if not conclusive, for judging the class of the job. The mere fact that one does not have powers of hire and fire will not make him a worker or workman. Nature of the duties that he has been performing will go a long way together with the quantum of emoluments and allowance of the post, in determining if it is one of a workman or has some higher status. The respondent has been drawing around Rs.55,000 per month as salary. This included residential allowance, C entertainment allowance, servant allowance, house furnishing allowance, vehicle alongwith petrol, free telephone, unlimited medical facilities,.etc. He was entitled to travel by air and to have accommodation in superior hotels for attending to company's out- station business. Could all these amenities be enjoyed by a poor worker? He was a high ranking officer and was holding quite a responsible and attractive post, in the hierarchy of management or executive administration of the organization. By no means he was performing manual or clerical duties. He had even opted for grant of pension and was one of the trustees of the Employees'
Pension Fund. He did not make denial as regards enjoyment of these facilities and perquisites.
Where was then the need to have asked the organization to establish all that by leading evidence and then called upon the gentleman to displace these averments by adducing evidence in rebuttal? Object of provisions of Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. is not D to keep the chapter open, when on the face of it, assertion of a party, which may go to the root of the case, is either admitted or denial of which is not possible or the substance is in consonance with the common sense.
6. The gentleman makes grievance of the fact that he has been thrown out of service without any show-cause notice and without proof, even allegation, of any delinquency or default or malpractice on his part. The establishment maintains that it was a contractual service, and under terms and conditions of service his exit could be ordered on payment of salary of one months, and this condition was complied with, before asking this presort to quit. Well, he may have a case otherwise; but the question that would arise essentially is if he has entitlement to invoke the aid of the Labour Laws in his favor, by having access to a Labour Court. He may have recourse to any other forum for establishing his assertion and vindicating his position, but certainly the forum of a Labour Court would not be available to him for the purpose The view-point of the Court below in that behalf is open to serious exception and cannot possibly be adopted or affirmed. The impugned order, dated 2-9-1998 and 3-11-1998 are set aside, being wholly misconceived, infirm and unsustainable in law. The same are not immune from interference by this Court, in exercise of its provisional jurisdiction; and I proceed to allow the revisions petition and rescind the orders aforesaid, entailing dismissal of the grievance petition. There shall be no order as to costs.