1987 PLP 193 (PLC)

2. Briefly the facts are that respondent, Qasim Khan was an employee of the appellant management and due to some strained relations with the management, he was obliged to tender his resignation and thereafter, the respondent had filed an application under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, claiming an amount of Rs.22,616 as his legal dues from the management.

3. The case of the appellants is that the Head Office of the appellants is situated in N.‑W.F.P, therefore, the Labour Court at Karachi had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition of the respondent. Further, that, after having resigned from the employment of the appellants management, the respondent is no more a worker, thus, he is not entitled to file a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969. On merit, the claim of the respondent was also denied.

4. In the Labour Court an affidavit in evidence was filed by the respondent and he was cross‑examined by the appellants management, while, the appellants did not lead evidence. Therefore, in view of the evidence, led and the arguments of both the parties advanced, the learned Labour Court framed the following issues:‑ (i) Whether the petition is not maintainable at law? (ii) Whether the petition is time‑barred? (iii) Whether the applicant has no right guaranteed under Law? (iv) Whether any right of the applicant has been denied. If so, to what extent? (v) Whether the applicant is entitled to the relief as claimed in para 6 of his petition? (vi) What should the order be?

5. The learned Labour Court has decided the issues in favour of the respondent, but awarded only a sum of Rs.11,620 (Rupees eleven thousand six hundred and twenty only) as legal dues and directed the appellants to pay them to the respondent.

6. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Gulzar Ahmad, the learned counsel for the appellants management and Mr Shamas‑ud‑Din Khalid, the learned Advocate for the respondent, and had gone through the record and proceedings of the case. It was contended on behalf of the appellants that after submission of voluntary resignation on 7 3‑1983, the respondent ceased to be a 'worker' within the meaning of section 2(xxviii) and section 25‑A, I.R.O. so his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R O, 1969 was not maintainable. Further, that as the respondent was employed in a supervisory capacity and getting a monthly salary of Rs.1,500, therefore, he cannot be deemed to be a 'worker'. Lastly, it was contended that the dues claimed are not under any Law, Award or Settlement, therefore, the petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 is not maintainable. In support of these contentions, reliance was placed on a number of rulings cited on 1983 P L C 816; 1980 P L C 655; 1982 P L C 576 and 1982 P L C

380. On a careful examination of these rulings, .I hold that these are not relevant to the present case. On. the other hand, the respondent has relied upon Dost Mohammad Cotton Mills Ltd. Karachi v. Mohammad Abdul Ghani and another 1975 P L C 342 and Abdul Majeed alias Gharisaz v. Messrs Shahbaz Silk Factory 1980 P L C .349. In view of the evidence brought on record and other legal aspects of the case, I am satisfied that the learned Labour Court has rightly allowed the grievance petition of the respondent. The impugned order is, therefore, maintained and the appeal is hereby dismissed. The appellants management is directed to make payment of the legal dues to the respondent forthwith, as directed by the learned Labour Court. S . Q. Appeal dismissed.