1981 PLP 781 (PLC(CS))

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ ‑‑ S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (V of 1968), S. O. 10‑C (1)‑Workman claiming payment of statutory bonus‑‑No longer in service‑‑Cannot make grievance petition before Labour Court. Zahid Hamid for Appellant. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondent. Date of hearing : 25th August 1980. This appeal is directed against a decision of the learned Second Labour Court, given on 12th May 1980, directing the appellants herein to pay compulsory bonus to the respondent under Standing Order 10‑C (1) in addition to the bonus already received by him. The respondent, in his grievance petition, has claimed that he was entitled to receive bonus under Standing Order 10‑C (1) equivalent to one month's pay for the year 1976‑1977, in addition to the bonus for one month for the said year re ceived by him in accordance with the settlement between the appellant organization and the representatives of the workman executed 10th June1977. The appellants resisted the grievance petition on the grounds that it was time‑barred, that the respondent had in fact already been paid Bonus under Standing Order 10‑C (1) and that no grievance notice, as required by section 25‑A, I.R.O., had been given by the appellant to the respon dent organization. These contentions were repelled by the learned Labour Court which has passed the impugned Order.

2. The learned Labour Court, has it appears, overlooked the fact that admittedly when the respondent filed his grievance petition he had ceased to be an employee of the appellant organization and hence was not a worker of the appellants. It has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Noor Muhammad v. Shah Textile Mills Ltd., decided on 29th October, 1979, on the basis of the definition of worker, as given in the I.R.O., that a person who has ceased to be in the employment of an organization, cannot be held to be a `worker' of that organization and hence is not' entitled to prefer a grievance petition against it under section 25‑A, I.R.O. This aspect of the case has not been considered by the learned Labour Court. According to Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, the learned representa tive for the respondent, the respondent had, subsequent to the filing of his grievance petition; been reinstated in service by the appellant organiza tion but he was once more dismissed and the second dismissal order has been challenged before a Labour Court. There is, however, no evidence on record, to these important facts. I would, accordingly, set aside the im pugned order of the learned Labour Court and remand the case to it for giving a decision on the issue whether the respondent's grievance petition was maintainable after giving an opportunity to both the parties to lead evidence on this important issue which involves question of jurisdiction. Case remanded.