1996 PLP 246 (PLC)

Sh. Mir Muhammad for Appellant. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 1st November, 1995. This appeal arises from order of the VIth Labour Court, Hyderabad whereby the grievance petition filed by respondent trade apprentice was allowed and he was ordered to be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. The facts of this case are more or less admitted. Respondent Shaukat Ali was appointed as trade apprentice in Zeal Pak Cement Factory from 3‑11‑1988 for a period of three years. He completed his period of probation and was given training iii various jobs and after completion of this training period he was not re‑employed by the Cement Factory but was allowed to go. The respondent then filed his grievance petition before the Labour Court under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 that he was a worker and his services could not be terminated after completion of his period of three years as apprentice. The learned Labour Court considered the respondent to be a workman because he was having training as a helper in different departments and he therefore ordered re‑instatement of the respondent "in service" with all the back benefits without mentioning in what particular job he was to be re‑instated after completion of the period of apprenticeship.

3. Sh. Mir Muhammad on behalf of the appellant Cement Factory has pointed out that this case is governed by Apprenticeship Ordinance, 1962 and Apprenticeship Rules, 1966 (West Pakistan). Since it has not been shown that this Ordinance has ever been repelled nor any fresh Rules made in substitution of the West Pakistan Rules they would continue to apply in this Province. The Apprenticeship Ordinance provides the procedure .for a person undergoing training for any trade. The probationary period has been provided to be three months and the idea being to make it possible for the candidates to acquire standard of skill and proficiency in the trade or business. Any grievance of the apprentice is to be addressed to the Competent Authority appointed by the Government and the jurisdiction of the Courts is barred. Under the Apprenticeship Rules there has to be a Chairman and a Committee consisting of six members. A person desiring to be an apprentice has to sign apprenticeship contract. The duration of the Apprenticeship shall be specified is the apprenticeship contract: Rules 23 provides that it shall not be obligatory on the part of the employer to offer an employment to an apprentice on completion of his apprenticeship nor shall it lie obligatory on the part of the apprenticeship to serve the employer after completion of Apprenticeship.

4. In the present case the duration of the apprenticeship was fixed as three years. On completion of the duration the respondent was not employed nor offered any further employment in the factory but he was allowed to go. This was in accordance with the Rules but he was ill‑advised to file a grievance petition which was not maintainable under the rules.

5. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for the respondent has however cited PLD 1971 SC 550 that Zeal Pak Cement Factory is a company and suit on behalf of the company is not competent unless the Director Incharge is so authorised by a resolution of the company's Board of Directors. But this is not a suit and this ruling has no application to the facts of the present case.

6. The decision of the Labour Court for reinstatement and back benefits is therefore set aside and the appeal is allowed. H.B;T./2577/Lb.S Appeal allowed.