2000 PLP 678 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 2‑A & 37(3)‑‑‑Grievance petition.‑‑Competency‑‑‑Appeal before Appellate Tribunal‑‑‑Appellant who had retired from service had filed grievance petition wherein he had claimed his outstanding dues, various retirement benefits and full quantum of pension‑‑‑Grievance petition was returned by Labour Court holding that he being no, more in service after retirement, could not claim to be "workman" and invoke aid of Labour Court as only a person on the job could claim to be a "workman" and could file grievance petition‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Appellant was not asking for his' reinstatement in service and had not assailed order of his retirement, but had only laid claim to his outstanding dues‑‑‑Correctness of claim of appellant had to be determined in the light of evidence and relevant rules, but his grievance petition was returned simply on technical ground‑‑ Interpretation of law seeking safeguard and defend rights of working class was to be considered to be close to legal and statutory intent and objective and the contrary view would be perverse and averse to intention and aim of law and equity‑‑‑Case of appellant could be proceeded in the Labour Court and same had to be thrashed and determined on merits‑‑‑Case was remanded by Appellate Tribunal to Labour Court to decide afresh accordingly. Farooq Zaman Qureshi for Appellant. Sajid Hasan, Legal Assistant for Respondents. Learned Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, presided over by Mian Abdul Qayyum, on 3‑3‑1996, returned the grievance petition, as being incompetent, for presentation before proper forum. There were as many as 15 petitions, having been filed by different persons, claiming to be employees of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation, the Government Printing Press and a few other Organizations, having been serving them as, workmen. They were all dismissed or removed from service. They laid claim to their outstanding dues, various retirement benefits and full quantum of pension.

2. Being no longer in service they could not claim to be workmen and invoke the aid of the Labour Laws in their favour by having recourse to a labour forum, in the opinion of the learned lower Court. Learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has taken into consideration different aspects of all the matters and has discussed the case‑law on the subject. Coming to the conclusion that a person who is on the job can only claim to be a workman and after he has been retired or removed from service and the incidence being not relatable to any industrial dispute it was concluded that access could not be had to a Labour Court. Further, a view has been, expressed that only such interpretation would be treated as reasonable and acceptable which is nearer to the intention of the Legislature. I am, however, of the view that an interpretation which seeks to safeguard and defend the rights of the' working class is to be considered to be close to legal and statutory intent and objective and the contrary view would be perverse and averse to intention and aim of law and equity. Doors of, which forums, after all, are to be knocked at by the retired or ousted ex‑workers, for seeking redressal of their grievances and for the requisite relief, if the labour forums close their doors and they are ordained to go elsewhere.

3. It is also to be borne in mind, that in the present case, the ex- employee was not asking for his reinstatement and had not assailed the order of his retirement; he was only laying claim to his outstanding dues. According to him, he was retired in Grade‑6, although it should have been Grade‑9, and the amount of pension must have been in excess of Rs.1,200 rather than Rs.700; gratuity also was not parted with in full measure and the total amount paid was one lac and forty thousand rupees, instead of two lacs and fifty thousand rupees. Evidently correctness and quantum of these claims had to be determined in the light of the evidence and the relevant rules, but the appellant was not enabled to establish it, as his petition, alongwith the petition of 14 others, was rejected or returned on a technical ground. It has been alleged and asserted by the appellant. that his promotion had been withheld unjustifiably, and unlawfully over a period of 28 years, and substantial portion of the amount payable to him had been curtailed or withheld on account of his having worked for a few hours less than the standard expanse or working time. He was also retired about ten years before, as he has recently reached the age‑limit of 59/60 years. It is urged that a formula of expediency, rather of discrimination and not the one in accordance with the Rules and prevalent practice was evolved by the Authorities for working hardship and causing setback to his interests and it ws also not adopted in case of others.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the statement made and contentions raised by the appellant and his counsel, and I have arrived at a. conclusion that the case is proceed-able in a Labour Court, and it has to be thrashed and a determination made on merits; and for the purpose I would remand the case to the learned Labour Court No. 1, Lahore. The appeal stands accepted, with however, no order as to costs.

5. Record of the case, alongwith a copy of this judgment, be remitted to the learned Labour Court, without delay. H. B. T./11/P(Lab. Trib) Appeal accepted.