1993 PLP 118 (PLC)

Munawar Ahmad Javed and Amjad Hussain Syed for Respondent No.3. Dates of hearing: 12th and 13th October, 1992. This judgment shall dispose of Writ Petition Nos. 5133/91, 5134/91, 5135/91, 5136/91, 5716/91, 2987/91, 8066/91, 8096/91, 8097/91 and 8829/91, in which common questions of law and facts are involved.

2. The contesting respondents in all these petitions were workmen in the employment of petitioner No.

1. All of them were removed from service on account of misconduct. They challenged their removal from service by filing separate petitions under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in which one of the objections raised was that the order of their dismissal has not been passed by the Factory Manager. This objection found favour with the Punjab Labour Court, which directed the reinstatement of the petitioners into service with back benefits on 16th December, 1990. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which succeeded only to the extent of half of the back benefits.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of these petitions, has contended that the view taken by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal that only the Factory Manager was competent to order the removal of the services of the petitioners is contrary to law. Reliance has been placed by the learned counsel on the provisions of the Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil Industry (Control and Development) Act, 1973, as amended by Ordinance XVII of 1979, to contend that the aforesaid provisions have an overriding effect and as the management of the nationalised unit vest in the Managing Director or the Board of Directors, he was competent to terminate the services of the employees.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents has, however, argued that this ground is not available to the petitioners, inasmuch as it was not pressed into service before the Courts below, where the matters proceeded on the assumption that the provisions of West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 apply.

5. It cannot be denied that petitioner No. 1 is one of the establishments taken over by the Federal Government under the Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil Industry (Control and Development) Act, 1973, which was subsequently amended by Ordinance XVII of 1979. It is clear from section 6 of the aforesaid Ordinance that on taking over, the management and control of the establishment vested in the Federal Government. The question which arises, therefore, is as to whether the Managing Director appointed by the Federal Government was competent to terminate the services of the employees, in view of the powers vested in him under the Hydrogenated Vegetable Oil Industry (Control and Development) Act, 1973, or as a delegatee from the Board of Directors constituted under Ordinance XVII of 1979. It appears that this aspect did not receive due attention at the hands of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and there is no finding on this vital aspect of the matter. Consequently, the appeal filed by the petitioners cannot be said to have been decided in accordance with law by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal. From the tenor of the order or the judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Court, it appears that this question was agitated before it but even if it be not so, as the question involved is one of the jurisdiction purely dependent upon the interpretation of law, failure to raise this objection before the lower forum would not be fatal. In view of what has been stated above, these petitions are allowed and the judgment passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The appeal filed by the petitioners shall be deemed to be pending before it and shall be decided afresh in accordance with law. No orders as to costs. H.B.T./M‑637/L Petitions allowed,