' Khawar Mahmood was serving in the United Bank Limited, Bahawalpur Zone, as Machine Operator, and was dismissed from service on 21-3-1997. On 21-4-1997 he filed a grievance petition, under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. On behalf of the bank an objection was taken up in writing, on 19-12-1997, about lack of jurisdiction of the Labour Court. The prayer prevailed, and the learned Labour Court, Bahawalpur on 19-6-1998 directed the grievance petitioner to seek remedy before another appropriate forum, if so advised, holding that the grievance petition would be taken to have abated, by reason of newly-inserted section 2-A, in the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973; read with Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The official came up in appeal to this forum on 23-7-1998.
2. It was urged that the Labour Court had fallen in error, is not correctly appreciating the legal position and misinterpreting the newly-added provision aforesaid. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, certain categories of employees of Government Departments Statutory Establishments, Corporate Bodies Corporations and Private Organizations had been exempted and did not attract the mischief of the added provisions, ousting competence of normal and already available forums. Such matters, it was pointed out, had been agitated before higher forum, including Federal Service Tribunal, and no conclusive finding having been arrived at as yet, the grievance petition ought to have been kept pending, and not chucked out in the summary manner it was done, especially as the issue could be taken to have remained unresolved still.
3. It is, however, to borne in mind that in recent times, superior Courts have rendered verdicts and made pronouncements, which would provide guidelines to this Tribunal for arriving at a definite finding in this behalf. Mr. Justice Abdul Shakur us Salam had observed in a case reported as PLD 1992 SC 127 that a person being an employee of an attached Department of the Government could by no stretch of imagination be deemed to be a person employed in the administration of the State, in terms of section 1(3)(b), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969; a Chowkidar could hardly be described as a person instrumental in any way in the administration of the State. Mr. Justice Mukhtar Ahmad Junejo had rendered the leading judgment in the case, 1997 SCMR 1630 (Yusuf Ali Shah v. Quetta Serena Hotel) and had held that in view of the amendment made in the Standing Order 12(3) of the 1968 Ordinance, the provisions contained in section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 had become virtually a part of the Ordinance of 1968. This had expanded the scope of section 25-A, and even the workers, not covered, by clause (xxviii) of section 2 of 1969 Ordinance, could seek redress of their grievance under section 25-A, if they were covered by clause
(1) of section 2 of the 1968 Ordinance. The Legislature, by making the amendment, had manifested its intention to confer on persons, who were aggrieved by termination of their employment, discharge, dismissal etc. From service, the right to file a grievance petition under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Mr. Justice Ajmal Mian has dealt with the matter in further details, in the rulings reported as 1992 SCMR 505 (the same citation having also been reported as 1992 PLC 424) and 1993 SCMR 322, holding as follows:-- There is a marked distinction existing between the definition of 'workman' or 'worker', given in the two legislations, the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance (VI of 1968), and Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969). The definition stated in section 2(i) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is simpler as compared to the definition contained in sub-clause (xxviii) of section 2 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The Labour Laws are beneficial laws, enacted for the labour class with the object to provide inexpensive and expeditious remedy before a Labour Court and, therefore, the Ordinance being a benevolent enactment is to be constructed liberally in favour of the labour class and restricted interpretation ought not to be put on the scope of the definition of 'workman'. Where a person belongs to the labour class, he cannot be excluded from the ambit of the definition of workman. If services of an employee are terminated in breach of Standing Order 12(3) of 1968 Ordinance, he should fall (for seeking relief from a Labour Court), within the scope of the definition given in section 2(i) of 1968 Ordinance and need not fall within the purview of the definition as embodied in section 2(xxviii), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. If an employee wants to press into service section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for enforcing any other right granted under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, other than the right covered under Standing Order 12(3) (Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968), he should also fall within the definition of 'worker' provided under section 2(xxviii), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
3. In 1993 SCMR 322, it has been laid down that Order 12(3) ii termination termnation of service of a workman without a written order and without containing the reasons of termination. A workman, who is aggrieved by termination of his service, or removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal, may take action in accordance with the provisions of section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and thereupon the provisions of section 25-A,. Industrial Relations Orders, 1969 shall apply, as the same may be availed of for redressal of an individual grievance. Clause (3) of Standing Order 12 has been couched in such language which clearly indicates that the Legislature did not intend to deny the right of appeal in respect of an order of termination, to a worker, under the above provisions of the Standing Order but the intention was to provide a remedy which was available in the form of section 25-A, and it will necessarily imply the existence of right of appeal under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The right of an appeal may be sustained on the ground that there are two reliefs equally available, one under section 25-A and the other under Standing Order 12(3), and the right which is more beneficial and which provides the right of appeal may be opted.
4. In the latest ruling of the Supreme Court, his Lordship, the present Chief Justice of Pakistan has authoritatively pronounced that the employees declared as civil servants, under section 2-A, Federal Service Tribunals Act, would not automatically, become civil servants within the meaning of Civil Servants Act, 1973, in absence of corresponding amendment in the Civil Servants Act. This being the final opinion of the august apex Court of the country (pronounced in 1999 PLC (C.S.)
1208=1995 SCMR 1526, I would hesitate to endorse the view expressed by the learned lower Court.
The learned Presiding Officer will have to apply his mind afresh to the facts of the case and all the attendant circumstances, in making a realistic and objective appraisal and arriving at a correct conclusion, in the light of the evidence, that is adduced by the parties, when he proceeds further in the matter. The appeal is allowed and the impugned order, dated 19-6-1998 of the learned Labour Court is set aside, although with no order as to costs.
5. Copy of this order shall be conveyed to the Court concerned and the record of the case shall also be remitted without delay.