1976 PLP 849 (PLC)
RAILWAYS, LAHORE AND ANOTHER Versus GUL HAKIM AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1976 PLP 849 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Naimuddin, J |
| Parties | RAILWAYS, LAHORE AND ANOTHER Versus GUL HAKIM AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 849 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 849 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Naimuddin, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 849 (PLC) (RAILWAYS, LAHORE AND ANOTHER Versus GUL HAKIM AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Usman Ghani Rashid, Asstt. A: G. (Sind) for Petitioner.
- G. M. Qureshi for Respondent No. 1.
- Date of hearing: 10th January 1976.
- 4. In support of this petition, the only contention raised by Mr. Usman Ghani Rashid, the learned Assistant Advocate-General for Sind, is that the Junior Labour Court and for that matter respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate upon the dispute raised by respondent No.1 inasmuch as respondent No.1 based his claim upon the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (hereinafter called the Standing Orders Ordinance) and proviso to subsection (2) of section 1, thereof clearly excludes the case of respondent No.1 from the purview of the Ordinance.
- 5. Mr. G. M. Qureshi, the learned Advocate for respondent No.1 raised an objection that since the question of jurisdiction was not raised before the Junior Labour Court, the Assistant A.-G. may not be allowed to raise it in the High Court. It is true that the Junior Labour Court did not deal with this contention because the same was not specifically raised Wore it in the written statement or objections filed by the petitioners. However, the same was raised and dealt with by respondent No. 2 in the impugned order in the following manner, though decided against the petitioners :-
- 7. The learned Advocate for respondent No.1 in reply to the contention of the learned Assistant A.-G. relied upon the provisions of subsection (3) of section 1 of the I. R. O. and argued that the workmen employed in the Railway are specifically excluded from the purview of the provision of this subsection. Therefore, the application under section 25-A of the I. R. O. preferred by respondent No, 1 was maintainable. In order to appreciate the contention of the learned Advocates for the parties, it will be useful and convenient to reproduce the provisions of section 1(3) of the I. R. O.: ----
- It is not disputed before me by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that Railways is an industrial establishment. Even otherwise, section 2(f) of the Standing Orders Ordinance gives the following definition of 'Industrial Establishment: ---
- It is not denied that the 'railway' is carried on under the authority of the Central Government (now Federal Government). The only other require ment which is to be seen is whether there are any statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline which have been made applicable to the workmen employed in the Railways. It was contended by Mr. G. M. Qureshi that there were no such rules. However, the learned Assistant Advocate-General has relied upon the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, which have been incorporated mutatis mutandis in the Railway Employees' (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1961.
- Confronted with the Rules, the learned Advocate for respondent No.1 fairly admitted that he was not aware of the existence of the same and also admitted that they are applicable to his client.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 25-A read with S. 1(3), West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 1(4) and S. Os. 12 & 15 and Railway Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1961 - Application of dismissed Railway employee under S. 25-A, I. R. O., for re-instatement-Held, misconceived-Junior Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such application and grant relief claimed therein.
Judgment & Decree
(ii) . (iii) It shall not apply to any person employed in the police or any of the Defence Services of Pakistan and any services or installations connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan including an ordnance factory maintained by the Central Government or to any person employed in the administration of the Stale other than those employed as workmen by the Railways, (underlining* is mine) Posts & Telegraph Telephone Department." The application made by respondent No.1 was under the provisions of section 25-A of the I. R. O. Under these provisions a worker could bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his Shop Steward or Trade Union within three months of the day on which cause of such grievance arose and on his failure to redress the same it was open to him to take the dispute to the Junior Labour Court.
8. However, it is not the case of respondent No.1 that his grievance was in respect of a right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any award or settlement for the time being in force. His case is that his rights were guaranteed under Standing Orders Ordinance and in this connection he has referred to Standing Orders lit and 15 and stated that the provisions thereof were not observed. But section 1, subsection (4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance excludes the workmen employed in the Railways from the purview of the provisions of Standing Orders Ordinance. It is provided therein "1(4) It applies to -- (a) . . . . . . . . . . . . (b) . . . . . . . . . . . . (c) . . . . . . . . . . . . Provided that nothing in this Ordinance shall apply to industrial and commercial establishments carried on by or under the authority of the Central or any Provincial Government, where the statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline are applicable to the workman employed therein." It is not disputed before me by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that Railways is an industrial establishment. Even otherwise, section 2(f) of the Standing Orders Ordinance gives the following definition of 'Industrial Establishment:
"2(f) 'Industrial Establishment' means:
(i) . . . . . . . . . . . . (ii) . . . . . . . . . . . . (iii) a railway as defined in clause (4) of section 3 of the Railways Act, 1890 (IX of 1890); or (iv) . . . . . . . . . . . . (v) . . . . . . . . . . . . It is not denied that the 'railway' is carried on under the authority of the Central Government (now Federal Government). The only other require ment which is to be seen is whether there are any statutory rules of service, conduct or discipline which have been made applicable to the workmen employed in the Railways. It was contended by Mr. G. M. Qureshi that there were no such rules. However, the learned Assistant Advocate-General has relied upon the Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1960, which have been incorporated mutatis mutandis in the Railway Employees' (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1961. Confronted with the Rules, the learned Advocate for respondent No.1 fairly admitted that he was not aware of the existence of the same and also admitted that they are applicable to his client.
9. Since the application of respondent No.1 under section 25-A of the I. R. O. was based on the infringement of the rights guaranteed under Standing Orders 1 4 and 15 and since the provisions of section 1(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, excluded respondent No.1 from purview thereof,' so long as the Railway Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1962 remain applicable to him, his application was misconceived and the Junior Labour Court and for that matter respondent No. 2 had no jurisdiction to entertain the same and to grant the relief claimed therein.
10. In the result, I declare that the order of respondent No. 2 dated 11-12-1974 was passed without lawful authority and the same is hereby declared to be of no legal effect. The petitioners are also awarded costs of the petition. Petition accepted.