1991 PLP 298 (PLC)

This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. VII, Sukkur, dated 15-5-1989, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are, that the appellant was working as Typist with the respondents. On 7-5-1988 he was charge-sheeted for certain acts of misconduct for which he submitted an explanation. On 23-5-1988, the Municipal Commissioner, finding his reply to be un-satisfactory, awarded minor punishment of withholding two increments. Aggrieved by this order he served grievance notice upon the respondents and then filed the grievance petition.

3. I have heard Mr. Mohammad Saddiq Ansari, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Sattar Chohan, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

4. Mr. Abdul Sattar Chohan has raised the objection that the respondent Municipal Corporation is a `Statutory Body' and has its own Rules of Service as such grievance petition is not maintainable. Employees of Statutory Bodies who have their own Statutory Rules of Service would not be governed by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter referred to the `Ordinance') in view of the proviso to subsection (1) of the said Ordinance. However a Local Council including Municipal Corporation is an `industry' as defined under S.2 (xiv) of LR.O., 1969 as it undertakes to provide certain services, for which it employees workmen. It has not been excluded from purview of the I.R.O. which specifically excludes the employees of certain establishments under subsection (3) of S. 1 of I.R.O., 1969, Mr. Chohan has relied upon P L C 1981 page 474. wherein this Tribunal had held that Local Councils constituted under Local Council Laws were establishments engaged in carrying on industry and, therefore, the provisions of I.R.O. were applicable to the workmen engaged by the Local Councils. The respondents is also a creation of Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and, therefore, the provisions of I.R.O. would be applicable to its employees if they are workmen within the definition of I.R.O.

5. The workman as defined under the I.R.O. includes all employees, who are not employers and who do not hold administrative or managerial posts or work in supervisory capacity drawing Rupees one thousand per month as wages. The appellant is a typist and, therefore, would be workman as defined under the I.R.O. Section 25-A entitles a workman to invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court to enforce any right conferred upon him under any law. It does not restrict the enforcement of right guaranteed under the Standing Orders Ordinance, only.

6. Admittedly the respondents have their own Efficiency & Discipline Rules namely the Sindh People Local Council Servants Services (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1974. The appellant had, therefore, right to be dealt with in accordance with these Statutory Rules. Rule 2 deals with grounds of penalty, Rules 4 provides penalties and Rule 5 provides enquiry procedure. Admittedly no enquiry was held in the case of the appellant at such sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 would be applicable which is reproduced as under:- "(3) If the authority or the authorised officer decides that it is not necessary to have an enquiry conducted through an Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee, he shall: (a) by order writing, inform the accused of the action proposed to be taken in regard to him and the grounds of the action; and (b) give him a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against that action: Provided that no such opportunity shall be given where the authority or the authorised officer is satisfied that in the interest of the security of Pakistan or any part thereof it is not expedient to give such opportunity."

7. Admittedly in this case the appellant was charge-sheeted. Even if it is taken as `Show Cause Notice', it does not show whether the authority had decided not to hold enquiry and also does not show what action the authority proposed to take. It only calls upon the appellant to explain his position within fourteen days tailing which the matter would be decided ex parte, As a matter of fact, charge sheet is provided under Rule 6, in cases where the authority decides to hold enquiry under Rule 5(2). Thus in the case of the appellant neither procedure as laid down in Rule 6 has been observed nor the procedure as laid down in Rule 5(3) has been observed. Thus the rights guaranteed to the appellant under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules have been violated. The impugned order of withholding of the two increments has been passed without observing the procedure as laid down in the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, and as such is not sustainable.

8. For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is allowed. The impugned orders passed by learned Labour Court and by the Authority withholding increments are set aside. M.Y.H./1676/Lb.S Appeal allowed.