1984 PLP 463 (PLC)

Jhonson and Jhonson (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Zuboir Ahmed and another, 1980 P'L C 622 ; Imam Bux Qazi v. Trustees of port of Karachi 1980 P L C 495 ; Zahoor Ahmed v. Trustees of Port of Karachi and 2 others 1981 of Port of Karachi v. Abdul Ghani 1983 S C M R 769 rel. S. Hamid Ali for Appellant. Abbas Ahmed for Respondent. Date of hearing : 15th November, 1983. This appeal is directed against the order dated 9th October, 1982, dis missing the application of the appellant filed under section 25‑A,

1. R. O., 1969, for re‑instatement in service.

2. The facts leading up to the appeal briefly stated are that the appellant was a workman, employed as a Senior U. D. C. in Karachi Port Trust, the respondent therein. He was served with a charge‑sheet for misconduct. In a domestic enquiry, he was found guilty for misconduct and was compul sorily retired from service, vide orders, dated 30th August, 1979, by the respondent. HE filed a departmental appeal which was, not heeded to for a long time and in the situation he served a grievance notice on the respon dent on 15th February, 1982 and his grievance having not been redressed he filed an application in the learned Labour Court No. V at Karachi for his re‑instatement. The learned Labour Court dismissed his application on preliminary objections holding that the application was not maintainable by virtue of the proviso 1 to section, I, clause (4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and that it was also time‑barred. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant has come up in this appeal.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, Mr. S. Hamid Ali for the appellant and Mr. Abbas Ahmad for respondent and have also perused the relevant evidence available on the record. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised two‑fold contentions, firstly, that the provisions of proviso I to section 1 clause (4) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, would not be applicable to the instant case; and secondly, since the appellant had filed the departmental appeal which was not heeded to by the relevant authorities for a long time, which remedy was available to him side by side, he preferred to file an application under section 25‑A, I. R. O., before the learned Labour Court and the application was both legally maintainable as well as within time.

4. It is very clear that the respondent establishment is being carried on by and under the authority of the Federal Government under the provisions of the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886. Clause 8 of section 22 of the said Act empowers the Board of the Karachi Port Trust with the prior sanction of the Central Government to make regulations for regulating the conduct and terms and conditions of service of officers and servants of the Board and all other service matters including recruitment, promotion, enquiries, punishment and appeals. The learned counsel for the respondent, Mr. Abbas Ahmad has contended that in pursuance of this power, regulations and rules were framed by the Karachi Port Trust in respect of the service, conduct and discipline of the employees of the Karachi Port Trust. In fact he has referred me to such statutory rules framed by the Karachi Port Trust as Karachi Port Trust Officers and Servants (Efficiency and Discipline). Rules, as approved, vide Board's Resolution No. 533, dated 15th. March, 1969, and sanctioned by the Government of Pakistan, Min1stry of Defence, (Directorate General of Ports and Shipping), Karachi, vide No. 3‑46/9‑P. 111, dated 25th June, 1969. In view of this position, the Standing Orders Ordinance shall not be applicable to the respondent estab lishment by virtue of proviso I to section 1 clause (4) of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Since the Standing Orders are not applicable to they respondent establishment, the appellant cannot invoke the provisions oft clause (3) of Standing Order 12 and bring his grievance in respect of his removal from service under that clause before the learned Labour Court. Furthermore, he also cannot file a grievance application under section 25‑A, I. R. O. 1969. inasmuch as such an application can only be made by a worker' defined in Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, but the appellant by reason of his removal from service, which is unconnected with an industrial dispute has ceased to fall within the said definition as was held by this Tribunal in the case of Jhonson and Jhonson (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Zubair Ahmed and another (1980 P L C 622). Reliance in that respect has been placed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the cases of Imam Bux Qazi v. Trustees of Port of Karachi (1980 P L C 495) and Zahoor Ahmed v. Trustees of Port of Karachi and 2 others (1981 P L C 713) which decisions are on all‑fours in the circumstances of the instant case in appeal. Both the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties have relied on the recent authority of Supreme Court in the case of Trustees of Port of Karachi v. Abdul Ghani (1983 S C M R 769). I have carefully persued this Authority and find that very clearly it confirms the view held by this Tribunal in the above mentioned two decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent and in my view, the controversy in that respect seems to have been set at rest. I would, therefore, find that the appellant could not legally move the learned Labour Court in a grievance application against the respondent establishment and the application was not maintainable. In view of this settled position, the adjudication on the other issue with regard to the ques tion of limitation would not be necessary.

5. In the result the appeal is dismissed. A. E Appeal dismissed.