2020 PLP 42 (PLC)

Ch. MUHAMMAD MASOOD JAHANGIR, J.

Undeniably, Ch. Muhammad Qayyum, respondent No.2 was employed by the writ petitioner, who on attaining superannuation was retired as Officer Grade-III from service on 12.07.2007. Pursuant thereto, the pensionery benefits so calculated were received by him without any objection. However, subsequently he filed a Grievance Petition before the learned Labour Court, which was granted on 11th June, 2009 and the Appeal filed by the petitioner to assail it before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore was dismissed on 14th June, 2011, hence this Constitutional Petition.

2. The sole argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Labour Court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate upon Grievance Petition of respondent No.2, who being a retired employee did not fall within the definition of Workman in terms of section 2 (xxx) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, which was controverted by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 with emphasis that both the learned Courts below have already tackled this issue eminently and they were perfect to allow the Grievance Petition of the appellant.

3. There is no denial that under Section 46 of the Ordinance ibid only a Workman as defined under Section 2 (xxx) of the said Ordinance can invoke the jurisdiction of learned Punjab Labour Court and it would be advantageous to reproduce said provision here:- "Worker" and "Workman" means any and all persons not falling within the definition of employer who is employed in an establishment or industry for remuneration or reward either directly or through a contractor, whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purpose of any proceedings under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial dispute includes a person, who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid-off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay-off or removal has led to that dispute but done not include any person who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity." Its bare perusal has left no doubt in my mind that only an employee in the establishment or industry, who was dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid-off or otherwise removed from the employment in connection with or as a consequence of some dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment lay-off or removal led to that dispute, whereas admittedly respondent No.2 was never dismissed, discharged, retrenched and laid-off or otherwise removed from service, rather he remained in job till date of his superannuation, therefore, he was not falling within the definition of Worker or Workman, hence the learned Labour fora definitely lacked jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Grievance Petition, whose orders impugned herein being unlawful, nullity and having no legal authority cannot be sustained.

5. Consequently, the Writ Petition in hand is allowed, orders under challenge are set aside and the Grievance Petition of respondent No.2 is also dismissed, however, the latter may avail his remedy before the available forum. ZC/U-3/L Petition allowe