1990 PLP 699 (PLC)

Muhammad Ikram Zahid for Appellant. Mahboob Ahmed for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd July, 1989. The appeals captioned above emerge from the decisions dated 24‑4‑1989, recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad. In one grievance petition the appellant had challenged his reversion and in the other he had claimed promotion. Both of them were dismissed by the learned lower Court holding that he was employed in the administration of the State, therefore, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not applicable. Since common question of law is involved in both the cases, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the substantive post of the appellant was not for the collection of any tax and that since he was entrusted with the work of the collection of Tanga Licence fee only for five days i.e. from 24‑6‑1985 to 30‑6‑1985, he was not employed in the administration of the State and thus his petitions have been wrongly dismissed on this ground. This is true that the appellant was deputed to collect licence fee for only five days, but there is no evidence that his substantive post does not involve any such duty. Neither in his grievance petition nor in his statement the appellant disclosed what was his post and duty immediately before he was entrusted to the work of licensee. This was a question of fact as to what was his duty before he was deputed to collect the licence fee, but he has failed to show that the work which he was doing before that did not involve any regal functions. In the absence of such an evidence, the learned lower Court was justified in holding that the cases of the appellant were hit by section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

3. In cases where Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is found for certain reasons, not applicable, if the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 applies, the grievance petition under section 25‑A read with Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 can be made to challenge the order of termination from service but in the present case the services of the appellant were not terminated, therefore, Standing Order 12 also does not come to his rescue. Clause (3) of Standing Order 12 reads as under:‑‑ "The services of a workman shall not be terminated, nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In case a workman is aggrieved by the termination of his services or removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal, he may take action in accordance with the provisions of section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and thereupon the provisions of the said section shall apply as they apply to the redress of an individual grievance." In one petition the appellant had claimed promotion and in the other he had challenged the reversion, which means that he is in service and has not been removed from service.

4. As upshot of the observations made above, both the appeals fail and are dismissed. H.B.T./701/Lb. P Appeals dismissed.