1981 PLP 741 (PLC(CS))

S. A. Farooqi for Appellant. Muhammad Ahmad Syed for Respondent. Date of hearing : 22nd September, 1980. "The respondent, who was employed as a wireman under the Electric Inspector, Government of Sind, preferred a grievance petition before the learned VIth Labour Court, on 17th December, 1979 complaining that his services were terminated by an order of the Electric Inspector, dated 9th October, 1979 without holding any enquiry or issuing second show‑cause notice to him, as required by law. The respondent's grievance petition was resisted by the appellant on the ground that the former was a civil servant governed by the Sind Civil Servants Act and the Rules framed thereunder, particularly the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules and hence the grievance petition was not maintainable. On merits, the appellant contended that the respondent's services were terminated in accordance with the rules after a proper enquiry in which it was established that he had been frequently remaining absent from duties and also availing of leave under false pretexts. The learned Labour Court, while holding that the Standing Orders were not appli cable to the respondent. has taken the view that he was a workman for the purposes of the I. R. O., and consequently was entitled to maintain a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O. It has further held that as no proper enquiry was held against the respondent, the orders of termination of his services are invalid and accordingly it has set aside the same and ordered the respondent's re‑instatement in service with full back benefits. 2. It has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Johnson & Johnson Ltd. v. Zubair Ahmad, decided on 10th October, 1979 after an elaborate discussion on the subject, that a person who has been dismissed, discharged, retrenched, laid off or otherwise removed from service does not fall within the purview of the definition of "workers" and "workman" as given in the I. R. O., unless the dismissal discharge, retrenchment, lay off or removal was in connection with or as a consequence of an industrial dispute or has led to an industrial dispute, and consequently such a person was not entitled to file a grievance petition under section 25‑A, R. O., unless he was a workman falling within the definition of this term as given in the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, in which case, if he was aggrieved by the termi nation of his services, he could file a grievance petition under the pro visions of clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A, I. R. O. It has thus to be seen whether the respondent is a "workman" for the purposes of the Standing Orders. 3. Admittedly the respondent was employed in the Electric Inspecto rate which is an attached office of the Sind Government Irrigation Depart ment. It is also common ground that the Sind Civil Servants Act and the Rules framed thereunder, including the Sind Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules are applicable to the employees of the Electric Inspecto rate. As such, the Standing Orders will not be applicable to the Electric Inspectorate and its employees, in view of the first proviso to subsection (4) of section 1 of the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The respondent thus cannot avail of the provisions of clauses (3) of Standing Order 12 for the purposes of filing or maintaining a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. The learned Labour Court has also reached somewhat same conclusion. 4. The learned Labour Court, however, has taken the view that the appellant is a workman for the purposes of the I. R. O. and hence he could maintain a grievance petition under section 25‑A itself. I have already pointed out that it is only a person who is in employment in an establishment who can maintain a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O., and a person whose services have been terminated cannot do, unless the termination of his services was in connection with or in consequence of an industrial dispute or has led to that dispute or alter natively such a person is a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders. Since the respondent does not fall within the definition of worker as given in the I. R. O., he cannot file or maintain a grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O. 5. It was however, contended by Mr. Muhammad Ahmad, the learned counsel for the respondent, that the respondent was entitled to maintain grievance petition under section 25‑A, . R. .0., notwithstanding the fact that he may have been a Civil servant or a Government servant. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decision of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal in the case of Tubewell Employee's Union v. Secretary, Government of Punjab, Irrigation Department (1979 P L C 476). I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned Chairman in that case but that every Government servant is not excluded from the purview of the I. R. O., but only those Government servants who are employed in the administration of the State. In the case reported in 1975 P L C 361, a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court, of which I was a member, had occasion to examine the connotation of the expression "administration of the State" and held that only such Govern ment servants as were employed in the administration of the State were excluded from the purview of the I. R. O. These decisions, however, are of no assistance to the respondents. 6. In the instant case, as already pointed out the respondent neither falls within the definition of worker as given in the I. R. O., nor is he a workman for the purposes of the Standing Orders, which in fact do not apply to the office in which he was employed. As such, the respondent's grievance petition was clearly not maintainable. I would accordingly set aside the impugned decision and allow the appeal. Appeal allowed.