1989 PLP 65 (PLC)

Samiullah Khan for Respondent Date of hearing: 23rd February, 1988. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated u)‑4‑1984, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. V at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, 1.R.0., 1969.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case were that the appellant claimed to have been employed as Machine Operator in the Security Safe Keeping Department of the respondent Corporation for about 8 years and that as he was sick for quite some time, therefore, he was forced to take casual leave due to the sickness, but, on 17‑7‑1982, he was served with a charge‑sheet containing therein those charges which were not called for major punishment under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 governed to his services. The appellant further claimed that although he had submitted satisfactory reply to the said charge‑sheet but, an enquiry was conducted against him which was also fake resulting in his dismissal from service on 15‑12‑1982 and so, on 12‑2‑1983 he served a grievance notice upon the respondent Corporation which was rejected on 20‑2‑1983, therefore, he submitted his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

3. The respondent Corporation resisted the petition on the ground that the appellant was never serious in performing his duties and used to indulge in activities subversive of discipline and was also a habitual absentee without information or permission, therefore he was issued a charge‑sheet. Further, the clam of the respondent Corporation was that as the reply to the charge‑sheet was not satisfactory, therefore, a proper and lawful domestic enquiry was conducted against him in which he had participated, so, his dismissal from service was quite proper. The respondent Corporation had also taken a plea on the maintainability of the grievance petition on the ground that as the services in the respondent Corporation were governed by the Wage Commission Award, therefore, the grievance petition of the appellant was liable to be dismissed as he did not submit an appeal before invoking the jurisdiction of learned Labour Court.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and thereafter the learned labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Samiullah Khan, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Corporation and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. At the very outset, it would be pertinent to take a notice of the fact that it is an admitted fact in the impugned order that the alleged enquiry against the appellant was defective and could not be sustained. Therefore, the dismissal from the service of appellant could not be maintained and it is accordingly set aside. However, Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the. appellant has contended that under the required provision of Standing Orders it was mandatory for the appellant to serve a grievance notice upon the respondent Corporation before submission of the grievance petition, thus, the appellant had discharged his responsibilities. It was further submitted by Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the appellant that in view of the applicability of the provisions of Standing Orders, the Service Rules, if any, could not take place of the Statutory provisions of law, therefore, there was no defect in filing of the grievance petition before the learned Labour Court and it was not correct for the learned Labour Court while passing the impugned order in not accepting the principles as laid down by this Tribunal as well as the higher' Courts on this issue, so, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I see much force in these arguments of Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate and would hold that the grievance petition of the appellant before the learned Labour Court was maintainable as the Departmental Rules were not Statutory Law. Mr. Samiullah Khan, the learned counsel of the respondent Corporation has nothing new to add in his arguments which he had already submitted before the learned Labour Court and he has failed to submit any law or authority in rebuttal of the arguments of Mr. Ali Amjad, the learned Advocate for the appellant. I, therefore, see no force in any contentions of Mr. Samiullah Khan.

6. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the impugned order and would allow the present appeal. The appellant is directed to be reinstated in service with 50% (Fifty per cent) back benefits forthwith. A.E./1290/Lb. S. Appeal allowed.