1990 PLP 618 (PLC)

‑‑‑S.Os. 12 & 15‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A‑. Suspension‑‑Challengeable‑‑‑Suspension, if it is contrary to law or rules, could be challenged before Labour Court. Saleem Aftab for Appellant. Mian Mahmood hrussain for Respondents Nos. 1 to

3. Nemo for Respondent No.

4. Date of hearing: 22nd December, 1979. Inayat Ali, respondent, was the Assistant Lineman while Abdul Hafeez, respondent, is his son and was also Assistant Lineman. Ahmad Din, respondent No. 3, was Lineman Grade‑I. All of them were employees of the appellant WAPDA and at the relevant time were posted in Shahkot Sub‑Division (Electricity) WAPDA. They were suspended on 4‑1‑1979 on the allegation of misuse of power and theft of energy. They served a grievance notice (Exh. P.3) upon the appellant on 24‑3‑1979. They filed their grievance petition on 16‑4‑1979 before the Punjab Labour Court No. 3, Ferozewala, but was subsequently transferred to Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore by the orders of this Tribunal. The learned Presiding Officer of Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore accepted their petition and ordered their reinstatement with full back benefits vide impugned order dated 6‑7‑1979 by holding that the suspension of the respondents could not go beyond the period of 28 days as laid down under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and that the suspension from 4‑1‑1979 to 1‑2‑1979 was legal but the suspension from 2‑2‑1979 onwards was illegal. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order the appellant has challenged the same before this Tribunal through the present appeal.

2. The main argument of the learned counsel for appellant is that West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is not applicable to WAPDA. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon proviso to clause (c) of subsection (4) of section 1 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Following the National Shipping Corporation's case 1975 P L C 1, it can safely be held that WAPDA is not covered under this proviso as it is neither carried on by or under the authority of the Federal Government nor its rules are statutory rules of service. Consequently, I repel this contention.

3. Another argument advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the suspension is not a punishment in the eye of law but is a temporary severance from the job pending final decision. and, therefore, the grievance petition was not maintainable. It is well‑settled now that the suspension, if it is contrary to law or the rules, can be challenged before the Labour Court. No other point has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant although before the Labour Court several other points were agitated.

4. The result is that there is no substance in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. M.Y.H./714/Lb. P