1988 PLP 399 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 15th October, 1987. These are two cross appeals filed against a common impugned order, dated 29‑7‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.VI, Karachi, who had allowed the grievance petition of the worker, namely, Ghulam Nabi directing his re‑instatement in service with 25$ (twenty‑five per cent) back benefits. Appeal No. KAR‑205/1986 is filed by Messrs Port Muhammad Bin Qasim Authority against the order of re‑instatement in service while Appeal No.215 of 1986 is filed by the worker Ghulam Nabi against the award of only 25$ back benefits. As in both these appeals, to impugned order is same and common, therefore, I would also decide these two cross‑appeals by this single Decision.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the worker claimed to be a permanent employee of the management and at the relevant time he was working as a Driver in the establishment and that while, he was on leave on 25‑3‑1978, he was involved by the police of Tando Jam in some false criminal case which prevented him from joining his duties. That, however, an intimation to the effect was claimed to have been sent to the management. He further claimed that though he was convicted by Summary Military Court on 2‑5‑1978 and was sentenced to one year's R.I., a fine of Rs.5,000 and 5 stripes and was released by the same Military Court on 4‑8‑1979 and reported for duty, yet, he was not allowed to resume his duties. The worker claimed that despite of the fact that he sent such intimation to the management but, without any intimation or adopting legal procedure, the management had dismissed him from service. Therefore, being aggrieved of the said order, the worker approached the learned Labour Court for redressal of his grievance.

3. The management resisted the petition mainly on the ground that as it was not an industrial establishment, therefore, he was not a workman under the Standing Orders Ordinance and could not invoke the provisions of section 25‑A, hence he could not maintain his grievance petition which was liable to be dismissed. That on 18‑4‑1978, the management had addressed a letter to the worker to report for duty on the address given by him to the management but when he neither reported for duty nor sent any intimation, then, his services, were dispensed with on 8‑6‑1978.

4. Both the parties filed their respective affidavits‑in‑evidence and they were duly cross‑examined. Thereafter the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order, hence, the present two cross appeals.

5. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have also perused the impugned order as well as the record and proceedings of the case: First, I would take Appeal No.KAR‑205 of 1986. It was contended by the management that it was required to perform, different and multifarious functions and all its units or departments cannot be considered as a single establishment and only the workman employed in respect of docks and jetties were included in the definition of workmen or that it was a construction industry or that the learned Court has erred in coming to the conclusion that the worker has not committed any misconduct and or he was a driver attached with the Project Engineer. Further, it was contended by the management that the learned Labour Court has erred in finding that the services of the worker were terminated without adopting legal requirements. I see no force in any of the contentions of the management.

6. As regards Appeal No. KAR‑215 of 1986, Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Advocate for the worker has submitted that the impugned order depriving of the worker from 75$ back benefits, is bad in Law, therefore, nullity in the eyes of Law simply for the reason that, he was involved in a criminal case which was a false case and for this reason, he was prevented from attending duties due to the circumstances beyond his control. Mr. Shahani, the learned Advocate further pleaded that the impugned order is void ab initio and contrary to Law and all principles of Law as enunciated by this Tribunal as well as other superior Courts, hence it is liable to be set aside and the worker under the circumstances, was entitled to full back benefits, I also see no force in the contentions of Mr. M.L.Shahani, the learned Advocate for the workman.

7. Taking into consideration all legal pleadings of the parties and the factual circumstances of the case, I would hold that the impugned order is well reasoned and there is nothing wrong with it. I would maintain the same.

8. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. Both these cross appeals are hereby dismissed. The worker, namely, Ghulam Nabi is directed to be re‑instated in service forthwith, but, with only a modification that he will be re‑instated in service without back benefits. A.E. /1111/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.