1987 PLP 33 (PLC)

Abdul Majeed for Appellants. Itrat Puri for Respondent. Date of hearing: 18th May, 1986. DECISION I propose writing judgment of these 9 appeals by a single order. The impugned order was passed on 20‑8‑1985, by the learned Sind Labour Court No. II, at Karachi. Appellants have filed grievance petitions that they were permanent workmen of the respondent Establishment. They further submitted that they were refused overtime for 15 days in every month but were not paid at a proper rate for the overtime work and was not allowed Eid cloth and five per cent share in profit. These allegations were made by the appellants through grievance notice, dated 13‑9‑1984

3. Respondent Establishment objected the maintainability of the petitions under section 25‑A I.R.O. 1969, on the ground that the appellants were appointed as Watchman/Fireman and were not workmen the under the Standing Orders Ordinance. They further contended that petitions were also not maintainable on the ground that they had not terminated or dismissed the appellants from service and they were still in their employment and were absenting themselves from their duties since 5‑9‑1984 without any leave application or prior permission. The appellants examined themselves in support of their cases and filed their affidavits in evidence wherein the contents of their petitions were reproduced. They were cross‑examined by the learned Advocate for the respondent Establishment and during the course of the cross- examination produced certain documents in evidence as Exhs.4‑A to 4‑D. On behalf of the respondent Establishment one Mr. Yousuf, their Assistant Weaving Master filed his affidavit in evidence and he was duly cross‑examined by the learned Advocate for the appellants. The parties did not adduce any other evidence on their behalf.

4. I have heard both the counsels for the parties. The firsts contention is that the respondent Establishment have not terminated their services and the charge‑sheets initialled by the respondent-Establishment were not attended to by the appellants. The appellants/ gave grievance notices on 13‑1‑1984 which was prior to the actual culmination of the proceedings. Since the proceedings were not culminated A and they were not dismissed, therefore, the proceedings under section 25‑A, I.R,O. 1969 were premature. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellants states that they were gate‑stopped on 5‑9‑1984 by giving verbal orders of dismissal. A domestic enquiry was being conducted and the appellants did not wait for the ending of the domestic enquiry. They came earlier to report to the labour Court. Their case was, therefore, premature. It was held to be premature by the learned Labor Court and I also agree with the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. II and would, therefore, dismiss these nine (9) appeals. S. Q. Appeals dismissed