1996 PLP 270 (PLC)

Muhammad Shafiq Qureshi for Appellant. Mazhar Ali. Chowhan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 14th November, 1995. This appeal arises from the decision of Labour Court No. VIII, Larkana whereby the Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant for re‑instatement, as being not maintainable.

2. The appellant had worked as a mechanic on the Steam Roller belonging to Highway Division of P.W.D., Shikarpur Section. He was transferred from Shikarpur to Larkana but he did not join at Larkana and sent intimation to his employer regarding his sickness. Since. the question of sickness was not proved no leave was granted to the appellant for the period from March, 1992 till his termination from service on 30‑6‑1992. This termination order was in writing giving reasons that he was posted in Highway Division No. 1, Larkana and remained absent till the date of the order of termination.

3. The appellant had been employed on work‑charge basis and he therefore could not be considered to be a civil servant under section 2(b)(ii), Civil Servants Act since he was employed on work‑charge basis and paid from contingencies. It is also doubtful whether he was a worker under Standing Orders Ordinance as there was no evidence to suggest that in the Unit of the Highway concerned ,there were 20 or more persons employed as workers. This concern could not therefore be treated as an Industrial or Commercial Establishment. It has also not been shown that the nature of his work was such that he came within the definition of Industrial Establishment under section 2(ii) of the Payment of Wages Act. The Industrial Establishment under the Payment of Wages Act means any Tramway Motor or Omni Bus Service, deck or wharf, a workshop manufacturing articles, Factories under the Factories Act, Railways. Establishment of Contractor or establishment of a person employing workmen in Construction Industry. Possibly the Steam Roller was used for repair of road since he was not employed by any contractor. Under these circumstances the appellant has not been able to show that he fulfils requirements under the definition of a workman.

4. The learned Labour Court had been under the erroneous belief that the appellant working under the Highway Department of the Government is a civil servant. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Appeals 48 to 67 of 1993, copy produced on the record it is necessary to come to a definite finding whether the appellant could be considered as a workman under the Standing Orders Ordinance and whether in that capacity he could file a grievance petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. The case is, therefore, remanded to Labour Court for recording such evidence as might be necessary for coming to a definite finding whether the appellant can be considered as a workman under the Standing Orders Ordinance and Industrial Relations Ordinance The learned Labour Court may decide the case afresh in the light of the evidence so recorded Orders accordingly. H.B.T./2571/Lb.S Order accordingly