' By this common order, I propose to dispose of the above captioned 18 Revision Petitions as similar questions of law and facts are involved therein for determination by this Tribunal.
2. The necessary facts forming the background of the present Revision Petitions are that Siraj-ud- din and 8 others were employed as Area Managers in the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan. They were served with show-cause notices and then terminated from service with effect from 11-6-1998 on account of non-accomplishment of their business quota as laid down in their letter of appointment. Aggrieved of the termination they served grievance notices on the employer but their efforts did not yield any result. Whereafter they filed separate grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter to be called the Ordinance) with Stay Applications before the Labour Court, Swat wherein they prayed for the suspension of operation of the impugned termination order and reinstatement in their services with all consequential benefits. The learned Labour Court by an order dated 26-6-1998 issued interim status quo order subject to notice till next date.
3. The petitioner corporation contested the petitions and Stay Application both on legal and factual premises through written statements and replies to the applications.
4. During the pendency of the cases, the learned counsel for the petitioner corporation submitted application before the Labour Court, Swat for the dismissal of the grievance petitions on the grounds that the respondents were not workmen under the Ordinance and West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, therefore, the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the grievances of the respondents. These applications were contested by the respondents. The learned Labour Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties on the question of maintainability of the grievance petitions and the jurisdiction of the Court, dismissed the aforesaid applications and held the respondents as workmen vide order dated 7-10- 1998.
5. On 8-1-1999 the learned Labour Court also heard arguments on the applications for the grant of temporary injunction and confirmed the status quo order and held the respondents entitled to receive basic pay till the disposal of the cases.
6. The petitioner Corporation feeling aggrieved of the aforesaid two orders of the learned Labour Court, have preferred separate appeals under section 37(3) of the Ordinance which were later on converted into Revision Petitions as the impugned orders did not fall within the scope of the said section, while the respondents have assailed the last portion of the impugned order dated 8-1-1999 and prayed that they be allowed full pay with allowances instead of basic pay.
7. Learned counsel for the parties were heard in support of their respective viewpoints and record was perused with their assistance.
8. It was argued by the learned counsel for the corporation that the corporation is a corporate body which is owned and controlled by the Federal Government, therefore, the respondents would be deemed to be civil servants by virtue of the provisions of newly added section 2-A for the purpose of Service Tribunal Act, 1973 and as such neither Labour Court nor this Tribunal has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. He further submitted that any amendment made in law becomes a part of the original law and is applicable like the original statute notwithstanding its formal extension to the tribal areas. It was next argued that the respondents were terminated from service due to non-accomplishment of their business quota which do not constitute any Industrial dispute, therefore, they were not workmen and could not seek remedy before the Labour Court against their termination orders. He placed reliance on 1994 SCM R 2213. He further argued that the respondents were performing their duties in supervisor and managerial capacity as Area Managers, therefore, they were not workmen and could not invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. He further submitted that no irreparable loss would be caused to them, therefore, the impugned order dated 8-1-1999 is not sustainable.
9. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner corporation and submitted that the provision of section 2-A
(ibid) has not yet been extended to the Provincially Administered Tribal Area and as such the same are not applicable to the respondents cases. Therefore, the learned Labour Court has rightly assumed the jurisdiction. It was next argued that the respondents were employed as Area Managers and they were performing clerical works. They had no powers to hire and fire nor they were supervising the work and conduct of other employees of the corporation, therefore, the learned Labour Court has rightly held them as workmen. He submitted that the services of the respondents were terminated without conducting any enquiry, which was violative of section 15(4) of the Standing Orders, Ordinance, 1968. He further argued that the respondents have served the corporation for a long time and keeping in view long service of the respondents, learned Labour Court has rightly confirmed the status quo order by suspending the operation of the impugned termination order.
10. The contention of the learned counsel for the corporation with regard to applicability of the provision of Section 2-A (ibid) to the PATA is without any force. In view of Article 247(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 no Act of Parliament or Provincial Assembly shall apply to PATA or to any part thereof unless the Governor of the Province in which the Tribal Area is situated, with the approval of the President, direct that the law shall, in its application to a tribal area, or to a specified part thereof, have effect subject to such exception and modifications as may be specified in the direction. The learned counsel for the corporation has not been able to produce any notification regarding the extension of the said provision to PATA, as such the provision of section 2-A (ibid) has no application to the PATA.
11. The record shows that the respondents were terminated from service under Regulation No,4(ii)
(c) (2) of State Life Employees (Service) Regulation, 1973 which do not constitute Industrial' dispute, therefore, the respondents were not workmen within the meaning of section 2 (XXVIII) of the Ordinance. However, any person who is removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service otherwise than in connection with or inconsequence of an industrial dispute can approach the Labour Court with his grievance petition under the provisions of 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 for the redressal of his individual grievance provided that he is a workman under the said Ordinance and duly employed in any commercial or industrial Establishment. Reference can be made to 1999 SCM R 373. Whether a particular employee is a workman or not is a mixed question of law and facts which cannot be determined wihtout recording evidence. The learned Labour Court has decided such question without recording of evidence and held the respondents to be workmen, therefore, the finding of the learned Labour Court in this respect is unsustainable. It is well-settled law that mere designation is not the decisive factor for determination of the status of an employee as workman and while determining the status of a an employee, his nature of work and other related factors have to be taken into consideration.
12. So far as the suspension of the impugned order is concerned, it is clear from the record that respondent services were terminated for non- accomplishment of their business quota and before termination they were served with show-cause notices.
It is well-settled law that temporary injunction can be granted in those cases where it is established that the claimant has a good prima facie case, balance of convenience is in his favour and he is likely to suffer irreparable loss which cannot be measured in terms of money. In the instant cases the respondents are not likely to suffer such loss, as in case, they succeed in their cases, they would get consequential benefits and could be compensated in term of money.
' In view of the above, the Revision Petitions of the petitioners corporation are allowed, both the impugned orders dated 7-10-1998 and 8-1-1999 are set aside and the cases are remanded and transferred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Peshawar for the determination of the status of the respondents after allowing the parties to adduce their evidence on the subject. The Revision Petitions Nos,4 to 7, 15 to 18 and 28 of 1999 are dismissed. C.Ms. Also stands disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Revision .