1995 PLP 147 (PLC)

Muhammad Hanif Khan for Respondent Date of hearing: 4th December, 1994. This appeal arises from an order passed by the Fifth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi in an application under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969, for payment of arrears of gratuity.

2. The appellant was working as Stenographer and Telex Operator with the respondent‑Company. After about 15 years service the appellant tendered his resignation which was accepted and the appellant was relieved. The arrears of salaries were paid to him but the gratuity amounting to Rs.43,710 was withheld. It was argued before the Labour Court by the Counsel for the Company. that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application as the applicant Gul Haider was no longer in the ,I employment of the Company as a worker, having already resigned. The learned Advocate for the appellant, on the other hand, cited some decisions that resignation was no bar to entertaining a claim for payment of wages by the Labour Court.

3. Both the Advocates for the parties have cited decisions in support of their contention. Mr. Mehmood Habibullah has referred to a decision of High Court of Sindh in Constitution Petition No. 454 of 1990 ‑‑ National Bank of Pakistan v. Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others in which it was held that a worker after termination of his service could maintain his grievance petition relating to "Industrial Dispute" in the Labour Court though he was no longer in the employment of the company.

4. Similar case came up before this Tribunal earlier and it was decided by Justice (Retd.) ZA. Chhana that section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 gives a right to a "worker" to bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed under any law to the notice of the employer. The person having the grievance must therefore be a "worker" or workman for the purpose of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The appellant on his resignation could not be considered to be a workman at the time of filing the grievance application as he was no longer an employee of the respondent agency having previously resigned and further neither his services were terminated nor he was dismissed nor such termination/discharge etc. was in connection with or in consequence of an industrial dispute. Admittedly there was no industrial dispute in respect of the non‑payment of the dues of the appellant. The grievance application was held not maintainable and the order of the Labour Court rejecting the same was maintained.

5. In 1994 SCMR 2213 Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Saleem the same question came up before the Supreme Court where an employee of Karachi Port Trust whose services had been terminated otherwise than in connection with an industrial dispute was considered a "workman" as defined by the I.R.O., 1969. It was held in that case that individual grievance of an employee unrelated to "industrial dispute" could not form subject‑matter of a remedy provided by section 25‑A of the Ordinance, as he was not deemed to? be a workman, for the purposes of section 25‑A read with section 2(xxviii) of the I.R.O.,1969.

6. Here too the resignation of the appellant was not in connection with any industrial dispute and he was no longer an employee or workman. He could not, therefore, seek the remedy under section 25‑A, as held in the above decisions. The appellant is not, therefore, entitled to seek remedy under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 and he can have recourse to ordinary remedy under the civil‑law.

7. The order of the learned Labour Court is, accordingly, maintained and the appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./2394/Lb.S ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.