1992 PLP 1125 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 18th November, 1990. DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Vth Sindh Labour Court at Hyderabad, dated 25-5-1980, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back benefits.

2. I have heard Mr. S. Ahmed Farooqui, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. S. Jehangir Hussain Shah, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.

3. Brief facts of the case arc that the respondent was admittedly a Wireman in the office of the Electric Inspector, Hyderabad, when he was served with the show-cause notice dated 12-8-1979 and was terminated from service by order dated 9-10-1979. After serving grievance notice upon the appellants the respondent filed grievance petition, which was resisted by the appellants mainly on the ground that the respondent was not a workman and that no grievance notice was given.

4. This Tribunal by order dated 22-9-1980 held the respondent to be a civil servant and therefore allowed the appeal of the appellants and dismissed the grievance petition of the respondent. The respondent challenged the order of this Tribunal before the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh in Petition No.D-1708 of 1980 which was decided on 20-2-1985. Their Lordships held that the respondent was a workman and therefore the provision of civil service rules would not be applicable to him and the provisions of the labour laws would be applicable to him. The appeal was remanded back to this Tribunal for fresh decision.

5. As the respondent has been held to be a workman he could be removed only in accordance of the provisions of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Standing Order 15(4) requires that the misconduct is to be brought to the notice of` the workman within one month of the date of misconduct and that the employer shall institute independent enquiry. Show cause notice issued in his case discloses two charges against the respondent which may be reproduced as under:- "(1) That you are a regular student (Reg. No. 3550) of First Year Electrical of First Semester in Government College of Technology (Govt. Polytechnic Institute), Hyderabad and often remained absent from duty during the current year. (2) That you frequently availed of leave under some false pretexts for appearing at the Semester Examination conducted by Govt. College of Technology at Hyderabad."

6. It will be seen that the charges are vague and do not show when and on what dates the respondent remained absent. It is also not clear that the misconduct was brought to the notice of the respondent within one month as required under Standing Order 15(4). Furthermore, Mr. A.H. Rizvi, witness of the appellants has admitted that no enquiry was held. In view of the above, the order of the termination of the service has rightly been set aside by the learned Labour Court.

7. Mr. Farooqui contends, that grievance notice was not served upon the employer and that it was time-barred. I find that termination order was issued on 9-10-1979, whereas the grievance notice was given on 15-11-1979. Under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 the grievance notice is to be given within three months. As such this grievance notice cannot be considered as time-barred. Mr. Farooqui further submits that employer was the Electric Inspector who has issued order. Admittedly the respondent was serving in Government Department and the Government of Sindh is the owner of the department/establishment. The employer as defined in the I.R.O. 1969 in section 2(viii)(c) would be the authority appointed in this behalf or where no authority is appointed, the Head of the Department. There is no evidence to show that Electric Inspector has been appointing authority under section 2(viii)(c) of the I.R.O., 1969. As a matter of fact the contention of the appellant is that the I.R.O. 1969 is not applicable. The grievance notice was given to the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh. The Government of Sindh was the ultimate employer who paid the salary of the respondent. The notice cannot therefore be said not have been given to the employer. This objection also has no force. Appeal is accordingly dismissed. M.Y.H./1792/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.