2018 PLP 23 (PLC N)
NAWAB ZAD GUL Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY, KARACHI through Director Administration and 2 others
| Citation | 2018 PLP 23 (PLC N) |
| Forum / Court | Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal |
| Bench Members | Justice (R) Ali Muhammad Baloch, Member |
| Parties | NAWAB ZAD GUL Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY, KARACHI through Director Administration and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008) [As revived by Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act (XV of 2010)] |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2018 PLP 23 (PLC N)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Act (IV of 2008) [As revived by Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act (XV of 2010)] as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2018 PLP 23 (PLC N)?
The case was heard and decided by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal bench comprising: Justice (R) Ali Muhammad Baloch, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2018 PLP 23 (PLC N) (NAWAB ZAD GUL Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY, KARACHI through Director Administration and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M.A.K. Azmati for Appellant.
- Ch. Hameed Ahmed for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 41 & 54(3)
Pakistan Defence Officer Housing Authority Order [P.O. 7 of 1980], Arts.15 & 16
Service Rules for Employees of Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority, S.8(b)(5)
Employee of Pakistan Defence Housing Authority
Grievance application, maintainability of
Impugned order of Labour Court, whereby grievance application was dismissed as being not maintainable had shown that in case of wrongful dismissal of an employee the remedy for the employee was to claim damages and not reinstatement, since the relationship between him and the employer was that of "Master and Servant"; and that the employer did not have the backing of statutory rules
Section 8(b)(5), Chapter-III of Service Rules for Employees of Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority, provided that, if an employee, who absented himself without leave, or over stayed leave, would be served with three notices, each after ten days to rejoin duty; and in case of his failure to report for duly, his services would be dispensed with on the ground of misconduct under Arts.15 & 16 of the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Order, 1980
Employer Authority had been established only for welfare of the employees/officials of Armed Forces and did not run any business, commercial, trade, process of manufacturing and producing goods
Employer would not fall within the meaning and scope of Industrial Relations Act, 2008; as also under Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968
Employer Authority was not an industry as defined under S.2(xiv) of Industrial Relations Act, 2008
Employee was a public servant as defined under Art.16 of Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Order, 1980
Appeal having no merit was dismissed accordingly. [Paras. 2, 3 & 4 of the judgment] PLD 2010 SC 676 ref.
Judgment & Decree
PLD 2010 SC 676 ref. M.A.K. Azmati for Appellant. Ch. Hameed Ahmed for Respondents. Date of hearing: 20th March, 2014. DECISION JUSTICE (R) ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, MEMBER.
This appeal under section 54(3) of Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act, 2010, is directed against the order of the learned Labour Court No.1 dated 30.03.2012, dismissing the application of the appellant bearing No.95/2011 filed under section 41, as being not maintainable before it. Written arguments were filed on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents, after filing of the comments/objections on appeal, did not file his written arguments. Written arguments of the appellant and the comments have been perused as also the record and proceedings of the learned Labour Court. I have carefully perused the impugned order, which shows that in case of wrongful dismissal of an employee of the respondent
authority, the remedy for the appellant to claim damages and not reinstatement, since the relationship between him and the respondent authority is that of "MASTER" and "SERVANT" and that the authority did not have the backing of statutory rules. The view of the learned Labour Court finds support of the PLD 2010 SC
676. I am convinced with the above observations of the learned Labour Court. Section 8(b)(5), Chapter-III of Service Rules for employees of Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority clearly shows that if an employee, who absents himself without leave or over stays leaves, he shall be served with three notices, each after ten days to rejoin duty and in case of his failure to report for duty, his services will be dispensed with under misconduct. Under Articles 15 and 16 of the President's Order No.7/1980, the respondent -- authority has been established only for welfare of the employees/officials of armed forces. It did not run any business, commercial, trade, process of manufacturing and producing goods, as such, does not fall within the meaning and scope of Industrial Relations Act, 2008 as also under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The respondent authority is not an industry, as defined under section 14 of Industrial Relations Act, 2008. The appellant is a public servant, as defined under Article 16 of Order 7/1980. In view of the foregoing discussions, appeal has no merit and it is dismissed accordingly. HBT/9/SLT Appeal dismissed.