2016 PLP 358 (PLC)

ALI MUHAMMAD BALOUCH, MEMBER.

[This appeal is directed against the order dated 31-07-2009 passed by the learned Labour Court No.V, Karachi, allowing the grievance application of the respondent No.2, bearing No.96/2007 under Section 46 of IRO, 2002, thereby directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent No. 2 in service with back benefits w.e.f. 04.04.2007.]A On directions of this Tribunal, both parties have submitted their written arguments. Same were perused including the record and proceedings. I have carefully perused and gone through the impugned order that the very point of maintainability of the appeal and so also maintainability of the grievance petition, so raised by the appellant herein, has been elaborately and exhaustively dealt with by the learned Labour Court and did not agree to the contentions of respondents regarding School being neither commercial establishment nor running on commercial basis or for that reason an industry. Perusal of impugned order of the learned Labour Court further shows that the appellant failed to discharge its burden by producing evidence to prove that it is an educational institution and running on non-commercial/charity basis, except producing oral evidence. No evidence was even produced before the learned Labour Court, as is evident from the impugned order, that the respondent # 2 was not performing the duty of Assistant to the Principal in the administrative/managerial capacity. The appellant management also failed to produce any documentary evidence before the learned Labour Court showing duties being performed by the respondent # 2, as being employer it had all the record in its custody. It is an admitted position on record, as admitted by the witness of the appellant that, "approximately 350, 360 employees of the School as well as College are working in their Institution" and that "their employees are registered with Social Security and EOBI". The learned Labour Court, on failure of the appellant to produce documentary evidence before it, held that the appellant to produce documentary evidence before it, held that the appellant establishment is running on commercial basis and that the respondent # 2 is a "workman". As such, the learned Labour Court held the grievance application of the respondent # 2 to be maintainable before it. Further, as per finding of the learned Labour Court regarding illegal termination of the respondent # 2, without recourse to the provisions of law and respondent # 2 being a permanent employee, it is proved beyond any shadow of doubt that the respondent # 2 was permanent employee of the appellant and that he was dismissed/ terminated from service without issuing show cause notice/charge sheet, holding of enquiry and affording him opportunity of being heard. It has also come in evidence that the appellant used to terminate their workers without due process of law. It is also an admitted fact that no show cause notice was issued to [the respondent # 2 before his termination, as admitted by the witness of the appellant before the learned Labour Court. Appellant was bound to issue show cause notice/charge sheet and to conduct an inquiry before terminating services of the respondent # 2, being its permanent employee, as provided under Standing Orders-12 and 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. In my humble view, the findings of learned Labour Court are sound and well reasoned and I see no reason to interfere in it. The upshot of above discussion is that the appeal is held to be not maintainable and agreeing with the findings of the learned Labour Court, which are sound in reasons, I dismiss the appeal accordingly.]B HBT/3/SLT Appeal dismissed.