1983 PLP 696 (PLC(CS))

‑‑S. 25‑A read with West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1958), S. 2 (i) and S. O. 12 (3)‑Grievance petition against unlawful termination of service‑Employee of Municipal Corporation which performs t and exercises governmental function relating to Local Self‑Govern ment‑Can maintain grievance petition if covered by definition of "workman" under. West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Em ployment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and employed in any industrial or commercial under taking being run by Municipal Cor poration‑Sweeper not employed in any industrial or commercial undertaking of a Municipal Corporation‑Not entitled to grievance petition against alleged unlawful termination of service. Muhammad Dawood v. Mayor, Karachi Metropolitan Corporation 1981 P L C 879 and Johnson & Johnson Co. (Pak.) Ltd. v. Zubaif Ahmed and another 1980 P L C 622 rel. Mushtaq Ali v. Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur, 1981 P L C 474 distin guished. Date of hearing : 5th September, 1982. The sole issue which falls to be considered in this appeal against the decision of the learned VIth Labour Court, Hyderabad is whether the grievance petition of the appellant is maintainable. It is an admitted position that the appellant was employed in the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation as a sweeper. He was removed from service vide order dated 7th March 1981 on the charge of misbehaving with and assaulting the Health Officer. It has been held by this Tribunal in the case reported as Muhammad Dawood v. Mayor, Karachi Metropolitu Corporation (1981 PLC 679) that a grievance petitioner against unlawful termination of services can only be filed under the provisions of clause (3) of Standing Order 12 read" with section 25‑A, I. R. O., and that such a grievance petition must be preferred‑by a workman employed in an industrial or commercial establishment as defined in the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It was further held in that case, following the decision of this Tribunal in the case of K. M. C. v. Nawab Bloi and another, decided on 25th November, 1980, that a Municipal Corporation which performs and exercises governmental functions related to Local Self -Government was neither an industrial nor commercial establishment for the purpose of the aforesaid Ordinance, and hence the provisions of the Ordinance are not applicable to its employees, excepting such of them as may be employed in any industrial or commercial undertaking which is being run by the Municipal Corporation. Admittedly the appellant was not employed by the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation in any industrial or commercial under takings. Relying upon the above authority. I hold that the grievance petition of the appellant is not maintainable.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant, however, sought to argue that the establishments of local councils and Municipal Corporations are an industry as defined in the I. R. O. and the employees in such establishments can prefer grievance petitions under section 25‑A,

1. R. O., before the Labour Courts. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the case reported as Mushtaq All v. Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur (1981 P L C 474). That was a case in which an employee of a local council had brought a grievance petition against a local council. The contention of a learned counsel overlooks the fact that in the reported case the grievance of the employee was against the rejection of his claim for promotion and hence his grievance petition fall to be considered under section 25‑A,

1. R. O., as his claim for promotion was based on a right conferred by law, settlement or an award. In the instant case, however, the grievance of the appellant is against the termination of his service and hence his grievance would lie under clause (1) of Standing Order 12 read with section 25‑A,

1. R. O., and accordingly the grievance petition would be maintainable only if the appellant was a workman, as defined in the Sind Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and further he was employed in a commercial or industrial establishment, as defined in the said Ordinance, as has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Johnson & Johnson Co. (Pak.) Ltd. v. Zubair Ahmed and another (1980 P L C 622).

3. For the reasons discussed above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine. . Appeal dismissed.