2025 PLP 173 (PLC)

MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, J.

The Petitioner has challenged the Judgment dated 28.01.2022 passed by Respondent No.2, whereby, Respondent No.1 has been reinstated in the service of Petitioner Establishment, with back benefits, after setting aside the impugned Order of the learned Labour Court.

2. Mr. Sufiyan Zaman, Advocate appearing for the Petitioner, has argued that the Appellate Tribunal while passing the impugned Judgment has overlooked undisputed facts and law; that without any convincing evidence, the Appellate Court disagreed with the finding of the Labour Court, while ruling that the Respondent is a permanent worker under Standing Order 1(b); the Grievance Application was never served by Respondent No.1 upon the Petitioner as required under Section 34 of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 [the "SIRA"], thus, the Grievance Application/ Petition before the learned Labour Court had to be dismissed and was correctly done by the learned Labour Court. Under his Statement dated 24.02.2025, placed on record the Documents, including, the Employment Card [Annexure A/1] referred to in the impugned Judgment, Bank Statement showing transfer of salary in the Respondent's Account. This Statement is taken on record, a Copy whereof is provided to the Respondent's Counsel. Petitioner Counsel has cited the following two Judgements in support of his arguments, that the Respondent was unable to discharge his onus to prove that he was a Workman, because, merely producing the Employment Card [supra] does not change his status from non-workman to a Workman, as it is not disputed that the Respondent was not in the employment of Petitioner Company. The second Decision is with regard to non-service of a Grievance Notice. It is held by the Supreme Court, that when a Grievance Notice is wrongly addressed to a different Authority, who was not an appointing authority, then the Proceeding initiated on the strength of such Notice was incompetent. i) 2002 SCMR 943 [Khushal Khan v. Muslim Commercial Bank Limited]; and ii) 1993 SCMR 488 Managing Director, Shahi Bottlers (Pvt.) Limited v. the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and 2 others].

3. On the other hand, Respondent's Counsel supported the Decision and contended that Grievance Notice was admitted to have been received by Petitioner Company through its Chief Executive Officer; onus is on Petitioner to show that Respondent was not a Workman, especially when he has produced his Employment Card in the evidence. Further stated that admittedly the Respondent was terminated verbally without following the procedure laid down in The Sindh Terms of Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 2015, which illegal action has to be corrected through the impugned Judgment. Has placed reliance on a reported Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 2023 PLC [C.S.] 780 [The Chairman Agriculture Policy Institute, Ministry of National, Food Security and Research, Government of Pakistan v. Zulqarnain Ali].

4. It is undisputed [admitted in the cross-examination by the Respondent] that the Grievance Notice was not served at the address of the Establishment / Employer, but at the Premises of the CEO of the Petitioner Company/Establishment, in spite of the fact that Respondent No.1 was doing duty at the official Premises of the Establishment. This is fatal to the Case of the Respondent in view of the reported Decision of the Khushal Khan [ibid].

5. In view of the above discussion, the Case Law cited by the learned counsel for Respondent No.1 is distinguishable, wherein, it is held, that service / employment of a workman or civil servant cannot be terminated on oral directions; because, in the present Lis, we do not intend to give a finding on the status of the Respondent at this stage, as the Grievance Application itself was incompetently filed, and if the Respondent intends to restart the process, any finding on his status would prejudice his future course of action.

6. Consequently, in view of the above, the impugned Judgment is set aside, because, the Grievance Petition before the learned Labour Court was incompetently filed and this basic aspect of the case was overlooked by the Appellate Court, by not following the case law of Superior Courts. This Petition is disposed of along with all pending applications, with an observation that Respondent number one is at liberty to seek his remedy in accordance with law. UN/C-9/Sindh Order accordingly.