1982 PLP 167 (SCMR)

Abid Hassan Minto, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner Date of bearing: 26th March, 1979.

2. The petitioner did not dispute the first respondent's contention that he was not a workman within the meaning of the said Ordinance on account of the notification of the Federal Government under section 1 of the said Ordinance, but his contention, on the basis of the nature of the duties allotted to him, was that he was a workman within the meaning of the Standing Orders Ordinance, and, therefore on the plain language of Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, he was entitled to file a grievance petition under the said Ordinance against his employers and to prosecute all remedies under the said Ordinance. The Punjab Labour Court however, rejected this contention and held, on the evidence recorded before it, that the petitioner had failed to prove that he was a workman within the meaning of the Standing Orders Ordinance, therefore, it dismissed his grievance petition as incompetent by its order dated 30‑1‑1978.

3. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner challenged it in an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, and by its order dated 7‑8‑1978, the Labour Appellate Tribunal held, after examining the nature of the duties entrusted to the petitioner, that the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of the Standing Orders Ordinance and was, therefore entitled to sue the first respondent, because his services had been terminated without any notice. And, as the first respondent had contested the appeal on the ground that it was not maintainable, the Labour Appellate Tribunal further held that the appeal was competent on a proper construction of Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance read with section 25‑A of the said Ordinance.

4. Aggrieved by the Labour Appellate Tribunal's order, the first respondent filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court in which it contended that the petitioner's appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal was not competent on a proper construction of section 25‑A read with Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance. The first respondent's further submission in support of its writ petition appears to have been that the duties entrusted to the petitioner were of a managerial or supervisory nature, therefore, he was not a workman within the meaning of the Standing Orders Ordinance and was not entitled on this ground also to prosecute any remedies under the said Ordinance. The petitioner contested these pleas and it would appear that the learned counsel for both the parties placed before the High Court the relevant case‑law on the two legal questions raised in the writ petition. By a well‑considered judgment dated 10‑1‑1979, after examining the case‑law cited before him, the learned Judge, who heard the writ petition, held that the petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of the Standing Orders Ordinance, and that in any event, the appeal filed by him before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab, was barred under Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance read with section 25‑A of the said Ordinance. Accordingly, as the learned Judge allowed the writ petition of the first respondent, the petitioner has filed this petition for leave.

5. Mr. Minto took us through the evidence about the nature of the responsibilities and duties entrusted to the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner had been employed to do skilled clerical work within the meaning of clause (i) of section 2 of the Standing Orders Ordinance and in support of this submission, he relied on judgments reported in Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Ltd. Karachi v. Muhammad Abdul Ghani and another (P L D 1975 Kar. 3 42) and in Bashir A. Malik v. The Punjab Labour Court (Northern Zone), Lahore and 2 others (P L D 1973 Lah. 594), and pointed out that in Dort Muhammad Cotton Mills Ltd. Karachi v. Muhammad Abdul Ghani and another (1979 S C M R 304) this Court had refused to grant leave against the judgment of the Sind & Baluchistan High Court in the case of Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills. Learned counsel also took us through the relevant provisions of Standing Order 12 of the Standing Orders Ordinance an section 25‑A of the said Ordinance, as it stood in 1977, when the petitioner's services were terminated, and submitted that the learned Judge had erred in holding that the petitioner's appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab, was not competent.

6. Both these submissions raise questions of law of considerable public importance, accordingly we grant leave to examine them. Security in the sum of Rs. 1,

000. The appeal will be made ready on the present record with liberty to the parties to file additional documents if they so wish. Appeal allowed.