1997 PLP 383 (PLC)

6. Mr. M.L. Shahani has next argued that even regarding the application of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 there was a Notification of the Government of Sindh Labour and Transport Department issued from 9th January, 1991 renewable after every six months, exempting Pakistan Security Printing Corporation and Security Papers Limited, Karachi from the provisions of the Standing Orders subject to the conditions:‑‑‑ (i) That the existing. facilities (Financial arid Welfare) will not be decreased withdrawn; (ii) That the classification of the? workers will not be changed; (iii) That orders in writing will be given for appointment and termination of service; and ??????? (iv) That the Factory Inspector will have power to inspect the establishment to ascertain if these conditions were being fulfilled.

7. Mr. M.L. Shahani has pointed out that at no time from 9th January, 1994 had the Notification lapsed in favour of the workers that even the last such Notification, dated November 6, 1994 extended the last Notification dated 9th July, 1994 for a further period of six months. That the Government of Sindh had no intention at any time to ‑discontinue operation of this Notification exempting the appellant Corporation from provisions of the Standing Orders.

8. The learned Labour Court appears to have misconceived the meaning of the clause regarding continuance of the facilities regarding pay and allowances etc. The prayer for alteration of the date of birth extending the date of superannuation by 10 years cannot be considered to be existing facility.

9. Mr. Latif Saghar on behalf of the respondent has on the other hand argued that in spite of the provision under section 1(3)(e) in the I.R.O. and the Government Notification regarding Standing Orders, the Labour Court had jurisdiction because the said Government Notification was not actually published in the Sindh Government Gazette, although a copy was forwarded to the Superintendent, Sindh Government Printing Press, Karachi for publishing the Notification in the extraordinary Gazette etc. There is, however, a legal presumption that all official acts are duly performed. This presumption can, however, be rebutted by appropriate evidence.

10. Mr. Latif Saghar has referred to the cross‑examination of Ghulam Mustafa Shah; Administrative Officer of Security Papers Limited. He has stated in his evidence in cross‑examination: "It is correct that from July, 1994 to November, 1994 no fresh notification was issued. " Mr. M.L. Shahani therefore asked for time to produce copies of the Notifications. He has then brought on record the Notification dated 9th July, 1991 published on 15th July, 1991 exempting Pakistan Security Printing Corporation (Private) Limited. Karachi and Security Papers Limited, Karachi from the provisions of Standing Orders. Since under section 8 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 the exemption has to be published every six months. Mr. M.L. Shahani has produced copies of these Notifications signed by the Secretary to Government of Sindh and forwarded to Superintendent, Sindh Government Printing Press for publication in the next issue of the Government Gazette. The Notifications included one dated 21st June, 1993 covering the period under dispute.

11. Mr. Latif Saghar has then argued that these Notifications may not have been published in the Government Gazette as required under section 8 of the Standing Orders. It has, however, to be proved that the Government or the Printing Press had made this omission and the burden of proof lies on the respondents. Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Shah has not in his evidence referred to publication of the Notification but only to the issue of Notification and this has been controverted by production of the Notification dated 6th November, 1994 published in the Gazette, dated November 16. 1994.

12. The I.R.O. and the Standing Orders Ordinance are not, therefore applicable to the appellants as employees of Security Papers Limited and the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain their petitions under; section 25‑A of the I.R.O.

13. The order of the 'Labour Court being without jurisdiction is therefore set aside and the appeals of M/s. Security Papers Limited, Karachi are allowed: It is open to the respondent to seek their remedies in proper forum. The amount of back benefits deposited in the Tribunal may be refunded to the appellants Security Papers Limited after 30 days. H.B.T./139/Lb.S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeals allowed.