1981 PLP 928 (PLC(CS))

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑ ‑‑‑ S. 25‑A(3)‑‑Petition before Labour Court‑Limitation‑Grievance notice to employer served through C. B. A.‑‑‑Employer bound to convey his decision within 7 days‑‑Grievance petition to Labour Court filed after 9 days of service of notice‑‑‑Petition, bold, competent and not premature. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑ Ss. 25‑A (5) & 37 read with West Pakistan Industrial and Com mercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 12 (3)‑Wrongful termination of service‑‑'Workman entitled to grievance petition before Labour Court‑Railway employee serving on regular basis‑‑Service terminated unauthorisedly treating appointment as merely contractual terminable on 15 days' notice Termination order not based upon any law or rule‑Setting aside termination order by Labour Court, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal. ORDER The respondent was engaged by the Pakistan Railways, the appellant herein, as a Public Relations Inspector, on contract basis, on the terms and conditions stated in the letter of engagement, dated 15th August, 1973. Clause (?) of the said contract provides that it would be termin able on 15 days notice from either side without assigning any reason.

2. Although originally the engagement. of the respondent was on contract basis, as stated above, the Government of Pakistan, by its letter, dated 2nd January, 1974, brought the appointments of the respon dent and the other Public Relations Inspectors on regular basis. The said letter reads as follows :‑ "The Vice‑Chairman, P. W. Railway, Lahore. Sub.‑Public Relations Inspectors on P. W. R. Attention is invited to the Railway Board's letter of even number dated 21st December, 1973. It is presumed that the appointments of Public Relation Inspectors have been placed on regular basis against the seven posts of Public Relation Inspectors converted into NSP‑15 (Rs. 375‑825) on permanent basis from 21st December, 1973 and the terms and conditions originally offered to them have been suitably modified.

2. Please arrange to furnish a certificate in this behalf to the Rail way Board, urgently. M. Iqbal Sheikh, Section Officer/E.11. No. E. 7.3 P.O. 1/1‑II (CA). Lahore, dated 12‑1‑1974. Copy forwarded to the Liaison Officer, to the Minister for P. A. & Communications, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, in reference to the Railway Board's letter of even number dated 5th November, 1973. (Sd.) M. Iqbal Sheikh, Section Officer/E. II."

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid letter from the Federal Govern ment, the Railway Board, by its letter, dated 29th April, 1974, directed as follows :‑‑‑ "The Public Relation Inspector, Sukkur, C/‑Acme. Bd. Bills, Ed. P. 4 & D. A. O./Sukkur. Sub.‑‑Appointment of Public Relation Inspector. A copy of V. C. (P) Lahore letter No. 803‑E/18/38.(E. IV) dated 1st February, 1974 is reproduced below for information and necessary action. His pay may please be charged accordingly. (Sd.) for Divl. Superintendent P. W. R., Sukkur. Copy of letter referred to above. Sub.‑Same as above. It has been decided by the Railway Board that the appointments of Public Relation Inspectors may be placed on regular basis against the seven posts of Public Relation Inspectors converted into NSP‑15 (Rs. 375 825) on permanent footing from 21st December, 1973. They may be advised that their services have been placed on regular basis with effect from 21st December, 1973 just like other Railway employees."

4. Despite the fact that the appointment of the respondent had been brought on regular basis, his services were terminated in accordance with clause (7) of his original contract of engagement, vide the letter, dated 31st July, 1977, issued by the Divisional Superintendent, Railway.

5. The respondent challenged the termination of his services before the learned VIIth Labour Court, which has directed the Railway Adminis tration to reinstate the respondent with full back benefits. This direction was grounded in the view taken by the learned Labour Court that as the Government itself had regularized the appointment of the respondent, his services could no longer be terminated in accordance with the term of his contract, as the rules of regular employees bad become applicable to him. The Railway administration has come up in appeal to this Tribunal against the said decision.

6. Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan, the learned counsel for the Railway Administration has assailed the impugned decision of the learned Labour Court on 3 grounds. His first ground of attack was that no fault could be found with the termination of services of the respondent as it was strictly in accordance with the terms of contract entered into by the res pondent with the Railway Administration. The contention of Mr. Awan would have been very sound if the terms and conditions of service of the respondent had remained unaltered. However, as already pointed out, the appointment of the respondent and other Public Relations Inspectors had been brought on regular basis sad their terms and conditions had been modified on the basis of the letter of the Government of Pakistan, dated 2nd January, 1974. The respondent was specifically informed of the change in the terms and conditions of his appointment, vide the letter, dated 29th April, 1974, from the Divisional Superintendent, Railway. The Railway Administration having converted the appointment and engagement of the respondent from contractual basis to regular basis, it was no longer open to the Railway Administration to take action in accordance with the terms of the original contract, but the respondent was to be governed by the rules and the terms and conditions applicable to regular employees of the Rail way Administration. I specifically enquired from Mr. Sabbir Ahmad Awan whether the services of a regular employee in the Railway Adminis tration could be terminated on 15 days notice in the manner in which the services of the respondent had been done, but he was unable to refer me to any such rule. I am, therefore, of the view that the order, dated 31st July, 1977 terminating the services of the respondent on 15 days notice had rightly been held to be invalid by the learned Labour Court.

7. It was next submitted by Mr. Shabbir Ahmad Awan that the grievance petition by the respondent before the learned Labour Court was invalid or was at least premature in that it was filed after only 7 days of the service of the grievance notice by the respondent upon the Railway Administration. I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel. It appears that the earliest grievance notice given by the respondent to the Railway administration was through the Collective Bargaining Agent. This notice is dated 4th August, 1977, while the grie vance petition was filed on 13th August, 1977 i.e. 9 days later. In the case of a grievance notice served through the C. B. A., the employer is requir ed to communicate his decision on the notice within 7 days, as provided in subsection (3) of section 25‑A, I. R. O. The respondent, therefore, was entitled to file a grievance petition after the expiry of 7 days from the service of notice by the C. B. A. upon the Railway administration.

8. It was finally contended by Mr. Awan that the respondent has merely sought a declaratory relief. The grievance of the respondent, how ever, is against his unauthorized termination of services. This grievance, he is entitled to bring to a Labour Court under the provisions of Claus (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I. R. O., and the Court is thereupon entitled to pass appropriate orders on his grievance petition, as provided in subsection (5) of section 25‑A, I. R. O. Since the order of termination of services of the respondent do clot appear to be base upon any rule or provision of law, the order of termination cannot sustained. I would accordingly concur in the view taken by the learned Labour Court and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed.