1981 PLP 779 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑‑ S. 1 (4)‑Exclusion from operation of Ordinance Establishment must have properly framed statutory rues of service, conduct and discipline ‑Word "framed" ‑ Means enforced or bringing into operation‑‑Draft of rules approved by Board of Trustees of K.P.T. Subsequently approved by Government before promulgation Rules, in circumstances, held, properly framed--Jurisdiction Issue‑‑Can be raised at any time ‑‑ Jurisdiction‑‑Industrial dis pute. Mughees Ahmed Samdani for Appellant. Date of hearing : 18th August, 1980. The services of the appellant, who was employed as a Carpenter in the K.P.T., the respondents herein, were terminated on the ground that he had over‑stayed his leave without prior permission. The Medical Certificate submitted by the appellant in support of his contention that he had fallen ill at his native place and was, therefore, unable to report for duty on the expiry of the leave granted, was rejected by the Chairman, K.P.T., despite the fact that it was supported by the Chief Medical Officer. The appellant challenged the orders of termination of his services before the Labour Court which rejected it on the ground that the grievance petition filed by him was barred by limitation. On appeal, this Tribunal held that the grievance petition filed by the appellant is within time and accordingly remanded the case to the learned Labour Court for decision on merits. On remand, the Labour Court has once more dis missed the appellant's grievance petition, this time on the ground that the claim for reinstatement in service by, the appellant is based on Standing Order 12 (3), but since the Standing Orders are not applicable to the K.P.T., the appellant's grievance petition was not maintainable. In coming to this decision the learned Labour Court relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Imam Bux v. Trustees of the Port of Karachi (Appeal No. KAR‑405 of 1979, decided on 18th December, 1979). The appellant has once more approached this Tribunal in appeal against the said decision.

2. Mr. Mughees Ahmed Samdani, the learned representative of the appellant, has raised a two‑fold contention in support of the appeal. His first contention was that the application of the Standing Orders will be excluded in respect of an establishment only if it has properly framed Statutory Rules of Service, Conduct and Discipline. He submitted that if such rules have not been framed by the competent authority or are not framed in accordance with the Statute under which they purport to have been framed they cannot be considered to be valid statutory rules and will not have the effect of excluding the application of the Standing Orders. The learned representative invited my attention to Appendix B‑I of the K. P. T. Digest of Rules. 'The said Appendix contains the K. P. T. Officers and Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. Accord ing to the recitals made in the above Appendix the rules were approved by Board's Resolution, dated 15th March, 1968, and were sanctioned by the Government of Pakistan, vide their letter, dated 25th June, 1969. The learned representative submitted that inasmuch as the K. P. T. Act re quires that the rules must be framed with the prior sanction of the Government of Pakistan whereas in the instant case the sanction is a post facto one and follows the approval of the rules by the Board of Trustees, the rules in question cannot be considered to have been framed in accordance with the requirements of the statute and have, therefore, to be ignored. The argument of the learned representative is attractive but on a closer examination of it I find it to be without substance. The requirement of law is not that approval of the Government should obtained before even the Board drafts the rules but such approval must precede the framing of the rules. Obviously the Government can not be expected to accord its approval to rules which are yet to be drafted and are not in existence even in draft form. The word "framed" in the Statute has been used, in my opinion, in the sense of enforcing or bringing into operation. The rules in question were admittedly enforced after approval thereto of the Government of Pakistan was obtained. As such, I am of the view that rules have been properly framed.

2. It was next contended by Mr. Mughees Ahmed Samdani that the plea that the Standing Orders were not applicable to the K. P. T. bad not been initially raised by the K. P. T. and consequently this plea could not have been entertained or upheld by the learned Labour Court. This contention is not quite correct. In their written objections to the grievance petition, the very first objection taken by the respondents is that the Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to try the matter. In other words the respondents were taking the plea that the grievance petition in question was not maintainable by the learned Labour Court. In any case; since the question whether the Standing Orders are or are not applicable to the K.P.T. goes to the root of the matter it involves the question of the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and hence this objection can be taken at any time, as has been held by their Lordship. of the Privy Council. 4: For the reasons discussed by me, I find no merit in this appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the same. Appeal dismissed.