Individual grievance

2023 PLC 34 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S.33Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i)Individual grievanceTermination of employment"Workman"Bank ManagerScope

Petitioner was initially appointed against the post of Branch Manager and later on he was posted as Assistant Manager-II/Relationship Manager Retail and thereafter he was terminated from service

Single Bench of NIRC (National Industrial Relations Commission) reinstated the petitioner in service

Full Bench of NIRC, on appeal, set aside the order passed by Single Bench

Validity

Petitioner had remained unable to prove himself a workman in terms of S. 2(i) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, as he was not performing any manual or clerical duties

Staff Service Rules of the Bank ousted him from the clerical cadre and instead had placed him in the management cadre

Petitioner was holding power of attorney on behalf of the Bank

Petitioner, in order to wriggle out of the objection pertaining to his status as Manager, should have given the details about the nature of his job particularly of his last posting; similarly, also to have explained the effect of power of attorney and also about the details powers mentioned in the power of attorney but he had failed to discharge the onus of proof

Constitutional petition, being bereft of any merit, was dismissed.

2022 PLC 156 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

S.33Individual grievanceExtending of similar reliefScope

Services of appellants were transferred to State Bank of Pakistan after dissolution of Pakistan Banking Council in terms of Banks Nationalization (Amendment) Ordinance, 1997

Appellants became employees of the State Bank on terms and conditions governing their employment with the Pakistan Banking Council

Appellants were taken by State Bank on its roll but their services were subsequently terminated

Some of the employees who were similarly terminated, succeeded in obtaining an order for their reinstatement from the Supreme Court

Appellants, in view of the order of Supreme Court, served grievance notices on the State Bank but to no avail

Appellants approached Single Bench of NIRC who dismissed the petition on the ground of limitation

Validity

Settled law was that the office order which had given right of absorption to the employees of Pakistan Banking Council could not have been withdrawn at later stage

Non-litigating parties had to be extended benefits of relief granted to other similar persons

Relief of judgment of Supreme Court could also be extended to the appellants

Appeal was accepted.

2022 PLC 111 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

S.33Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 1Individual grievanceRegularization of servicesPermanent "workman"Temporary "workman"Development Authority having non-statutory rulesEffect

Petitioners sought regularization of their services on the ground that they had continuously been performing jobs of permanent nature since the date of their appointment and a workman with nine months service was treated as a permanent employee under Os.1(b) & 1(e) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Contention of Authority was that service regulations of the department were statutory and its employees were excluded from the ambit of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Validity

Department's contention did not hold ground as Service Regulations of the Authority had not been approved by the Federal Government but by the Board, therefore, the Regulations were non-statutory

Petitioners had attained the status of permanent workman and had become at par with all other employees of the department but they were still being treated as daily wages employees which violated their right of being permanent employees of the department

Petitions were allowed.

2022 PLC 29 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

Ss.33 & 2(xxxiii)Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O. 12Individual grievance"Workman"Termination of employmentScopeAppellant, a Bank employee, assailed dismissal of his grievance petition as well as his termination from serviceValidityAppellant was not Branch Manager in the respondent Bank

Bank's witness in his cross-examination had admitted that job description of appellant was to open accounts, clearance of cheques, remittances, making draft and pay order; that appellant had no subordinates; that the appellant was working under the supervision of Manager Operations and that no power of attorney was executed by the Bank in favour of the appellant regarding hiring and firing and transfer of any employee

Bank could not bring on record any specific function of appellant which was managerial or supervisory in nature

Termination letter was issued without holding of enquiry which was mandatory under Industrial and Commercial Employments (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 for termination of "workman"

Appellant was a "workman" and he was illegally terminated, therefore, he was re-instated with back benefits

Appeal was allowed.

2021 PLC 260 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

S.33Individual grievanceScope

Petitioner claimed that he was appointed in the (respondent) Bank in the year 1979; that he served grievance notice on the Employer Bank for regularization of his services; that after receiving the grievance notice, the petitioner was terminated without any reason; that the petitioner served another notice against verbal termination and that having no response he filed the present grievance petition

Contention of employer Bank, inter alia, was that the petitioner was not its employee rather he was a godown keeper, who was employed by borrower of the Bank

Validity

Godown keeper had to be loyal to Bank as he was keeping eyes on pledged assets on behalf of the Bank as it was in its interest because Bank had extended finance facility against the assets; contention of Bank that godown keepers were employees of owners of pledged assets was not plausible because the owners of pledged assets would not safeguard assets of Bank

Petitioner had remained godown keeper with various companies/traders on behalf of Bank

Had the petitioner been employee of a particular company he could not have switched over from one owner to another on behalf of the Bank

Besides admission of Bank that petitioner was godown keeper, the petitioner had also provided copies of various documents which were sufficient proof of the fact that the petitioner was performing duties with the Bank as daily wages/casual labourer

Petitioner had attained the status of permanent workman

Petition was allowed, in circumstances and the petitioner was re-instated into service with full back benefits.

2021 PLC 134 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

S.33Individual grievanceCondonation of delayWrong advice of counselScope

Mistaken advice of counsel does not automatically constitute a sufficient cause lpso facto for condonation of delay as a matter of course and routine, rather the applicant has to specify the reasons with clarity and precision, which prevailed with the counsel and led him to commit the mistake and such application must also be supported by an affidavit.

2021 PLC 134 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

S.33Individual grievanceLimitationNon-service of grievance noticeScopePetitioner, a driver of university assailed order passed by employer/university whereby he was relieved from serviceValidity

Petitioner, after release from service approached High Court despite being aware that the service regulations of the employer were non-statutory and constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked in such cases

Petitioner had taken more than 90 days in filing petition in the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) which was sine qua non for filing petition under S.33 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Grievance notice appended with the petition was undated and was not supported by proof of service

High Court while dismissing the Constitutional petition had also touched merits of the case and remarked that petitioner was given eight different warnings regarding his discipline issues, even then he used to drive in reckless manner despite clear warnings and had not mended his ways

Grievance petition being not maintainable on the grounds of limitation as well as non service of grievance notice, was dismissed.

2021 PLC(CS) 260 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

S.33Individual grievanceScope

Petitioner claimed that he was appointed in the (respondent) Bank in the year 1979; that he served grievance notice on the Employer Bank for regularization of his services; that after receiving the grievance notice, the petitioner was terminated without any reason; that the petitioner served another notice against verbal termination and that having no response he filed the present grievance petition

Contention of employer Bank, inter alia, was that the petitioner was not its employee rather he was a godown keeper, who was employed by borrower of the Bank

Validity

Godown keeper had to be loyal to Bank as he was keeping eyes on pledged assets on behalf of the Bank as it was in its interest because Bank had extended finance facility against the assets; contention of Bank that godown keepers were employees of owners of pledged assets was not plausible because the owners of pledged assets would not safeguard assets of Bank

Petitioner had remained godown keeper with various companies/traders on behalf of Bank

Had the petitioner been employee of a particular company he could not have switched over from one owner to another on behalf of the Bank

Besides admission of Bank that petitioner was godown keeper, the petitioner had also provided copies of various documents which were sufficient proof of the fact that the petitioner was performing duties with the Bank as daily wages/casual labourer

Petitioner had attained the status of permanent workman

Petition was allowed, in circumstances and the petitioner was re-instated into service with full back benefits.

2021 PLC 203 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.46Individual grievanceScope

Respondent was terminated from service on the ground that as he was appointed on "deceased quota" of his brother but he had failed to support widow and children of the deceased

Labour Court reinstated the services of the respondent (employee) whereas Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the petitioner (employer)

Validity

Respondent was a permanent employee of the petitioner-Company

No material was placed before the court by which it could conclude that the impugned orders were erroneously passed, therefore, no ground existed for re-evaluation of evidence

Concurrent findings arrived at by the courts below could not be lightly interfered with unless some question of law or erroneous appreciation of evidence was brought on record

Labour Appellate Tribunal had dilated upon the issues in an elaborate manner and had given its findings by appreciating the evidence of the parties

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2021 PLC 175 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S.46Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. 2(i)Individual grievance"Workman"Scope

Petitioner assailed concurrent findings on the grievance petition filed by him under S.46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002

Petitioner claimed that he was appointed as a Computer Operator by a sister concern of the respondent establishment; that, later on, he was appointed as Bailing Incharge and then he was transferred to the establishment and designated as Outdoor Quality Supervisor and that he was given a motorcycle for visiting different units of the establishment for checking quality of cloth; that in the month of Ramzan he got leave to sit for Aitekaf and when he returned after Eid holidays, he was not permitted to enter the factory premises, as such he was constrained to file the grievance petition after giving notice

Labour Court dismissed the petition on the preliminary ground that the petitioner had failed to satisfy the court that he was a "workman"

Appellate Court maintained the findings of the Labour Court

Validity

Affidavit-in-evidence filed by General Manager (Admin) of the establishment before the Labour Court stated that the petitioner was lastly performing the duties of Quality Supervisor and he used to go to various mills in order to check the quality of cloth on behalf of the establishment

Petitioner was doing laborious repetitive job of checking quality of cloth made at various mills of the establishment on motorcycle given to him by the establishment without any supervision from the management, not requiring any great amount of imagination to perform such a work which positively fitted the conditionality of being a "workman"

Petitioner during the course of a service definitely exposed himself to all the perils of working in a factory including inhaling cotton fibre most of the day

Petitioner was declared to be a workman in purview of Cl.2(i) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Impugned judgments were set aside and the matter was remanded to the Labour Court for decision on merits.

2009 PLC 236 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 46Individual grievanceJurisdiction of Labour Court

So far as the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to redress the individual grievance of a worker under S.46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 was concerned, the said jurisdiction was altogether different

Labour Court had the power to redress the individual grievance of a worker even if unfair labour practice was not established, if the worker had been deprived from any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force

Commission of unfair labour practice was not a condition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.