1984 PLP 1701 (PLC)

Ghulam Ali Agha for Appellants. Nizamuddin Baloch for Respondent. Date of hearing: 15th July, 1984. The facts briefly stated are that the respondent,' Asghar Ali is an employee of- the appellant organization working as Store-keeper at Jacobabad. He was served with a show-cause notice for misconduct and as a result of it he was punished by an order of withholding of his two annual increments with cumulative effect and also his transfer from Jacobabad to Sukkur. He served a grievance notice on the appellant organization and as his grievance was not redressed he filed a grievance application, before (he learned Sind Labour Court No. VII at Sukkur. The learned Labour Court recorded the evidence and ultimately set aside the order of penalty imposed on the, res pondent and ordered fresh enquiry on the ground that no enquiry at all was held against the respondent. The learned Labour Court further ordered that the fresh enquiry should be completed within a period of three months from the date of order and if the appellant organization failed to hold the enquiry within the stipulated period, it will be presumed that the respon dent was innocent. The application filed by the respondent was allowed accordingly. Aggrieved by the order, the appellant organization has come in this appeal.

2. I have perused the relevant evidence on the record and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties Mr. Agha Ghulam Ali for the appellant and Mr. Nizamuddin Baloch for the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised two-fold contention, firstly, that the application filed by the respondent was not maintainable in view of the first proviso to section 1(4) of the West Pakistan Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968; and secondly, that the appellant had held a fair and independent enquiry against the respon dent before passing an order of penalty above-mentioned against him and, therefore, he had no case even on merits. As regards the first contention, the appellant organization was established by the Provincial Government of Sind under Sind Agricultural Supplies Organization Act, 1973, sec tion 19 of which Act empowered the appellants to frame their own rules of service and conduct for their employees. The appellant under section 19 of the Act, vide their notifications, dated 6th and 7th April, 1981 adopted the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, to be applicable to its employees with the result that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was ousted in view of the proviso 1 to section 1(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance .which provides that nothing in the Ordinance shall apply to industrial and commercial establishment carried on by or under the autho rity of the Federal or any other Provincial Government where statutory rules of service (Conduct and Discipline) are applicable to the workmen employ ed therein. I have gone through the provisions of Sind Agricultural Supplies Organizations Act of 1973, which make it very clear that the appellant organization is carried on by or under the authority of the Provincial Government. The notifications issued thereunder referred by me above make it further clear that the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, have been made applicable to the employees of the appellant organization by virtue of section 19 of the Act. Therefore, the' application filed 'before the learned Labour Court under section 25-A,"

1. R. O., 1969 would not be maintainable as the case of the respondent shall not be governed by the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. It would therefore, be very clear that the case of the respondent shall be governed b their own Statutory Rules of Service (Conduct and Discipline) as adopted by the appellant organisation as stated by me above. The application filed by the respondent, therefore, before the learned Labour Court was very, clearly not maintainable. Since the appellant organization succeeds: on the first contention raised by them, it would not be necessary to give finding do the second contention raised by them.

3. The result is that the impugned order, dated 19th January, 1984 passed by the learned Labour Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. A. B. Appeal allowed.