Grievance application

Appellant, claiming to be a permanent workman, filed grievance application in the Labour Court, for his re-instatement in service with back benefits

Representative of the workman filed statement for disposal of the complaint as not pressed and on the basis of such statement, Labour Court dismissed the complaint as not pressed

Effect

Complaint of workman was dismissed for non-prosecution and not as withdrawn

Workman filed fresh complaint and Labour Court found that after disposal of first complaint, appellant could not file fresh complaint as same amounted to double jeopardy

Validity

Disposal of earlier complaint of the workman, due to his absence and lack of contract with his representative, could not be treated as trial

Section 48(5) of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, did not make any distinction between orders passed by Labour Court in proceedings of civil or criminal nature

Orders of Labour Court were amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the Tribunal, irrespective, whether same were passed in proceedings of civil or criminal nature

Consent order for re-instatement of the appellant in service without back benefits, having not been acted upon, case was fit for exercise of revisional jurisdiction by the Appellate Tribunal

Appeal was converted into revision and the impugned order, which was not sustainable in law, was set aside

Case was remanded to Labour Court for disposal according to law.

Appellant workman, had challenged order of Labour Court, dismissing his grievance application for his reinstatement in service with back benefits

Contention of employers was that they having not employed the appellant at any time, question of removing him from service would not arise

Case of the appellant was that employers, as per their practice, had not issued him any document of employment

Employers did not specifically deny their practice of not issuing employment documents to their workers and did not prove or even plead that they issued employment documents to their workers

Appellant's contention about the employers' practice of not issuing employment documents to their workers, had gone unchallenged and un-rebutted

Labour Court had given finding against the appellant mainly because he had failed to produce any document about his employment

When the employers were not issuing employment documents to their workers, it was not possible for the appellant to produce his employment documents

Standing Order 12(3) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, provided that a worker would not be removed from service, except by an order in writing, explicitly stating reasons for the action taken

Case of the employers was not that they had rightfully removed the appellant from service, but their case was that appellant was not their employee

Employers did not produce record of their employees to show that he was not amongst their employees

Appellant could safely be said to be was permanent worker of the employers and they had removed him from service wrongfully

Relations between the parties were so estranged that the employers were not prepared to acknowledge the appellant as their worker

No useful purpose would be served to impose on unwanted worker upon an unwilling employer

Litigation had taken a long time of three years and it was not believable that the appellant was sitting idle and doing nothing for all those three years; it would be just and proper to award a reasonable compensation to the appellant in lieu of reinstatement in service

Reasonable compensation of Rs.200,000 was awarded to the appellant as full and final payment for severance of his employment relationship with the employers

Employers, were directed to deposit said amount within 60 days for payment to appellant.

Appellant at the time of his appointment had declared his age as 28 years, and on the basis of such declaration, medical officer worked out his date of birth as 01-11-1948, which was mentioned in the record of his service

Appellant, after more than 28 years of his joining the service, did his matric and mentioned his date of birth in matric certificate as 28.11.1956

Appellant moved application for changing his date of birth, which was dismissed by the employer

Appellant filed grievance application for directing the employer to change his date of birth from 01-11-1948 to 28-11-1956

Validity

Appellant repeatedly and consistently declared and accepted his date of birth as 01-11-1948

Appellant's belated contention that his date of birth was 28-11-1956 on the basis of matric certificate was an afterthought, which could not be accepted

Matric certificate, heavily relied upon by the Appellant, showed date of birth as 28-11-1956, which was of no value as he had filed civil suit for declaring his date of birth as 28-11-1956, which was dismissed

Said findings of the trial court was upheld by the appellate court

Appellant did not mention anything in the grievance petition about dismissal of his civil suit and appeal and in this way, he had attempted to get an order in his favour by practicing fraud and misrepresentation

Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Appellant had alleged that judgment of civil court and the appellate court were not binding on the Labour Court as same were without jurisdiction

Validity

Appellant had not taken said plea in his grievance application

Appellant had suppressed the very fact of having gone to civil court for declaration of his age

Labour Court having limited jurisdiction, could not ignore judgment of the civil court which had plenary jurisdiction

Appellant having himself invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, was estopped from challenging its jurisdiction

Appeal was, therefore, dismissed in circumstances.

Appellant at the time of his appointment in 1976, declared his age as 28 years, and on the basis of such declaration medical officer worked out his date of birth as 01-11-1948, which was mentioned in the record of his service

Appellant, did not raise any objection to the age so determined and tried to get it changed after passing matriculation in 2004

After having failed to establish his claim in civil suit, he had filed application in the Labour Court after 34 years of his appointment and 15 months of his retirement

Appellant did not give any explanation for the said delay or making any request for condoning the delay

Appeal being time barred, was dismissed.

Employee, whose services were verbally terminated, filed grievance application, which was dismissed by the Labour Court on the ground that the employee did not send grievance notice to the employer before approaching the Labour Court

Employee, in his grievance application as well as in his affidavit-in-evidence, had specifically stated that he had sent the grievance notice to the employers; which was received by them, but they did not respond

Copies of the notice and the postal receipt, were filed by the employee with the application and original postal receipt was also filed

Objective of bringing employee's grievance to the notice of the employer, was to provide opportunity to the employer to redress grievance at his own level and to save the parties from cumbersome litigation

In the present case, grievance notice was given/signed by the employee himself and there was confusion only in sending/posting the same

Labour Court, was not justified to dismiss the grievance application as incompetent for want of grievance notice to the employer

Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, was set aside and case was remanded to Labour Court for fresh decision on merits on all issues, including the issue of service of grievance notice, after giving opportunity to both the parties to produce any further evidence in support of their contentions

Appeal was disposed of accordingly.

Appellant, who was appointed as 'waiter' in Club, and worked for more than five years, his services were terminated on ground that period of his temporary employment was over

Labour Court dismissed grievance application filed by appellant/worker against his termination order on the ground that provision of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, did not apply to the employer club

In presence of the clear statutory definition of "Commercial establishment" in S.2(b) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, the provisions of the Ordinance would apply to 'club'

Impugned order of the Labour Court, being not maintainable, was set aside

Work of waiter, was of permanent nature and it was not the case of the employer that the appellant was appointed on any project of temporary nature likely to be finished within a period not exceeding nine months

Appellant who worked on the post of permanent nature for more than five years, was a "permanent workman" and his services could not be terminated on the ground that his period of contract was over

Impugned order passed by the Labour Court, was set aside

Appeal and consequently the grievance petition, were allowed, and employer club was directed to reinstate the appellant in service with full back benefits .

Employers, terminated services of the employee without any reason, or giving any show-cause notice or charge-sheet or enquiry

Employee, served grievance notice upon the employers, and thereafter filed grievance application before the Labour Court

Labour Court reinstated the employee in service with full back benefits

Tribunal, on appeal, remanded case to the Labour Court to pass a fresh judgment after providing parties to lead their evidence, and Labour Court after recording evidence and hearing, reinstated the employee in service without back benefits

On filing appeal by the employee against said order of the Labour Court, no one appeared, despite employer was served through Bailiff as well as through Courier service

Validity

Employee, who was a permanent workman, his services were verbally terminated; and in the first round of litigation, employee was reinstated in service with full back benefits

Employee, after termination of his services, remained jobless, despite his efforts to get livelihood

Employee, was ordered to be reinstated in service, with full back benefits; within thirty days from the date of the decision, in circumstances.

Both the parties agreed that matter be remanded to the Labour Court for fresh decision on legal issues including the issue raised before the Tribunal through additional legal objection on the point of limitation

If the Labour Court would arrive to the conclusion that it had the jurisdiction, then the Labour Court could proceed on merits.

Employer had alleged that employee being supervisor was not "workman", as such his application before Labour Court was not maintainable

Validity

Nature of duty and not the designation would determine whether a person was a "workman" or not

Record showed that employee had elaborately explained and claimed that he was doing manual and clerical work

Employer did not deny said fact specifically

Employer did not cross-examine employee's statement to the effect that he perform his functions manually and was doing clerical work

Said circumstances had suggested the status of employee as "workman"

Order accordingly.

Employer had alleged that provisions of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 had been applied to all the employees of employer

Corporation, employee, therefore, could not seek his remedy from the Labour Court in view of said Act

Validity

Neither the Federal Government nor the specified Authority i.e. the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission, had framed Rules to regulate the wages and other conditions of service of the persons in the employment of the Corporation

Act and the rules, if any, would supersede and bar the jurisdiction of the Labour Court only when those contained any contrary provision

Objection of employer Corporation that provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, were applied to all employees of the Corporation was not sustainable

Order accordingly.

Employee had filed appeal before Federal Service Tribunal, which was abated in view of judgment of the Supreme Court in Mubeen-us-Salam's case

Employee's departmental appeals, filed before filing the appeal before Federal Service Tribunal, could be treated as grievance notice, as such, non issuing specific notice to the employer before filing appeal before the Labour Court was not fatal.

Order of Labour Court, was set aside and appeal was allowed, holding that employee was entitled for all the benefits of the service till his claim of date of superannuation when he was illegally retired

Employer was directed to implement the decision of the Tribunal within thirty days, in circumstances.

Employee, who was permanent employee was dismissed/terminated from service without issuing any show-cause notice, charge sheet, holding of enquiry and affording him opportunity of being heard

Record showed that employer institution terminated their workers, without due process of law

Labour Court, had rightly allowed grievance application of the employee, thereby directing the employer to reinstate the employee in service with back benefits

Findings of the Labour Court, being sound and well reasoned, no reason existed to interfere.

Workman, who claimed to be a permanent "workman", working as driver in the factory of employer, filed application for his reinstatement in service with back benefits as the employer had allegedly removed him from service wrongfully without any order in writing

Employer contended that workman was employee of its contractor to whom it had assigned the work of loading and unloading raw material and finished goods within the factory premises

Labour Court dismissed the application of workman with the reason that workman had failed to prove that he was employee of the employer

Work of loading and unloading of raw material and finished goods within the factory premises was directly concerned with the production of the factory; and was not an independent work; and lifters and tractor trollies used for the work, belonged to the employer

Operators and drivers of the lifters and tractor trollies, in circumstances, were for all practical purposes, workmen employed for the factory; and the story of the contractor, appeared to have been introduced as a device to deprive the workers of their legal rights

Name of workman appeared in the monthly shift schedules, signed by Notified Manager of employer, which had shown that workman was employee of the employer and not of the so-called contractor

Workman was not removed or dismissed from service on the charge of absence from duty

Workman was employee of the employer and was wrongfully removed from service

Judgment of the Labour Court, being not sustainable, was set aside

Period of more than 17 years had passed, and the workman was doing job in another establishment

Reinstatement with back benefits, would be harsh to the employer; and reinstatement without back benefits, would not be beneficial for the workman

Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances observed that it would be appropriate to compensate the workman adequately for the loss of the job

Compensation of Rs.150,000 was awarded to the workman in lieu of reinstatement

Employer was directed to deposit said amount within 60 days for payment to the workman.

Services of the employee, along with several other workers having been terminated on the ground that their services were "no longer required", all workers including the employee filed grievance application

Labour Court by a common judgment reinstated workers with 75% back benefits, except six workers, including the employee; whose application was dismissed on the ground that after withdrawing his legal dues deposited in his Bank account gradually, he ceased to be an "aggrieved person"

Said amount of legal dues, was deposited in account of the employee after termination of his services

Gradual withdrawal of said amount by the employee to sustain his life during unemployment, would not amount to waiver so as to estop him from challenging his unlawful termination

Labour Court as well as Tribunal were required to pass just and proper orders with regard to appropriate relief to be given to the employee; which could not be limited only to reinstatement, but would include award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement

Labour Court or Tribunal, was not handicapped to award compensation in lieu of reinstatement, if that be the just and proper order in the circumstance of the case

Employee as per his own claim, served for four years only

Award of lump sum reasonable compensation of Rs.300,000, in lieu of reinstatement was given to him

Employer, was directed to deposit said amount within 30 days.

On the very same day, employee sent by post an application to the President of the club for not accepting his resignation, contending that he had resigned under pressure

On receiving said application, Competent Authority, directed the employee to join duty immediately, failing which it would be presumed that he was misplaying his resignation; and it would be treated as final

Employee, instead of joining duty, informed the employer that he would not join duty unless his resignation was declared void

On receiving charge sheet about his unauthorized absence from duty, employee reported for duty which proved that employee had remained absent unauthorizedly from duty for more than 10 days, the employee was dismissed from service

Refusal of employee to join duty was uncalled for; it would have been proper, if he had joined duty before receiving the charge sheet

Labour Court reinstated the employee mainly on the ground that hands of the employer, were not clean

Such could be a mitigating circumstance, but not a reason for complete exoneration

Act of the employee of not joining duty after he was directed to do so, would amount to "misconduct" within the meaning of S.O.15(3)(e) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Punishment of dismissal from service was too severe, particularly when on receipt of the charge sheet he readily reported for duty with thanks

Award of punishment provided under S.O.15 of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, must fulfil the requirements of old aphorism 'let the punishment fit the crime'

It required that the level of punishment must be scaled relative to the severity of affording behaviour

Extreme action of dismissal, in circumstance, was unwarranted

Dismissal of the employee from service, was converted into withholding his increment for one year, in circumstances.

Employee at the time of his appointment declared his age as 23 years, and on basis of such declaration Medical Officer worked out his date of birth as 7-11-1955, which was mentioned in the record of his service

Employee, after more than 30 years of his joining the service, filed grievance application for directing the employer to change his date of birth from 7-11-1955 to 1-1-1958

Employee repeatedly and consistently declared and accepted his date of birth as 7-11-1955; his belated contention that he had declared the year of his birth as 1958, was an afterthought which could not be accepted

Birth Certificate heavily relied upon by the employee showing date of birth as 1-1-1958, was of no value as said date of birth was reported to the union council after more than 51 years of his birth

Entry kept in the record of the Union Council could not be treated as entry made in due course of the performance of official functions

Such was a manipulated entry

Under provision of S.34 of Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, grievance notice, was to be given within three months of the date on which the cause of grievance arose; and a worker could take the matter to the Labour Court within 60 days from communication of employer's decision

In view of said express statutory limit of time for the redressal of grievance, it could not be said that a worker could get the date of his birth changed at any time without any limit

Employee had neither given any explanation, nor asked for condonation of delay, nor the Labour Court had condoned same on any ground

Labour Court under a misconception, erred to hold that employee could ask for changing date of birth at any time and erroneously directed the employer to change his date of birth

Order of the Labour Court was set aside and employee's grievance application stood dismissed.

Employee, who was working as barman in hotel, was dismissed from service on proof of charges of misconduct in an enquiry

Employee served unhygienic drinking water in an unsealed bottle instead of sealed bottle of mineral water ordered by a guest and served orange juice mixed with water to another guest

Prior to that 5 letters of warning were given to the employee on different dates for his repeated acts of misconduct

Employee had admitted to have received the warning letters and admitted to have apologized in writing for his negligence

Employee was warned for sitting and eating in the restaurant during duty hours; warned for remaining absent without intimation for 3 days; and he was also warned for such like other misdeeds

Business of hotel largely depended upon the quality of service rendered to the guests

Barman plays an important role in the business, his punctuality, courtesy, etiquettes and cleanliness, were of significant importance

Conduct of the employee, had all along remained improper and unbecoming of a barman

Employer, who suffered a lot due to the persistent indifferent and careless conduct of the employee, could not be made to suffer and tolerate him further

No exception could be taken to the order of the Labour Court, refusing to reinstate the employee in service.

Employee, a junior clerk, was terminated, and she on receiving one month pay in lieu of notice, she severed her relations with the employer corporation

Employee after about 10 years of her removal from service, filed grievance application before Labour Court, without filing application or showing any cause for condonation of the delay, in filing grievance application

Employee, had contended that an other employee, whose service was terminated on the same day by a separate, but similar order, having been directed by Labour Court to be reinstated, benefit of Labour Court judgment of that other employee should be given to her as well

Validity

Said other employee who was reinstated, was ten years senior in service to the employee and her rank was also higher

Order of the Labour Court was not "judgment in rem", as it had neither decided any question of law, nor its decision was binding

Facts of the two cases being quite different, the ratio of case of other employee, could not be applied to case of employee.

Employee, who joined employer company as a Software Engineer, and was lastly drawing monthly salary of Rs.37,5000, his services were terminated, as those were "no more required"

Grievance application filed by employee against termination of his service, was challenged by the employers on the ground that employee was not a "workman"; and provisions of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, were not applicable, to the employer company, as the total number of the employees was nineteen

Grievance application was dismissed by the Labour Court on the ground that employee was not a "workman"

Validity

Employee, was a qualified Software Engineer, and was performing highly sophistated job of developing, maintaining and testing Software, which, according to the employee himself was a specialized work; and could be performed only by a qualified engineer/specialized professional

Nature of work of an employee was to determine his status as "workman", his work must be either manual or clerical

Software Engineering, was highly specialized study of applying engineering to design, develop and maintain software

Work performed by the employee, required high degree of skill, knowledge and education; and little physical effort for its manifestation by using Keyboard of Computer

Such was predominantly work of mind, and work of hands was merely accessory

Definition of "workman" in the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013, was wide in the sense that no condition of doing manual or clerical work was attached to it

Said definition of "workman", could not be applied to the employee seeking enforcement of his right, under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Labour Court was justified to hold that employee, was not a "workman" within the meaning of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Appeal being meritless, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Employee who was serving as Naib Qasid in the employer establishment, was compulsory retired on allegation that he was involved in theft

Grievance application of the employee was accepted by the Labour Court

Validity

Employee without any coercion had voluntarily accepted compulsory retirement and received amount as gratuity and G.P. Fund

Employee had also been receiving regularly amount of his monthly pension, he was estopped by his words and conduct to ask for withdrawal of his compulsory retirement

Time barred appeal had been filed by employee wherein he had prayed that impugned judgment to the extent of imposing condition for depositing all the pensionary dues be set aside

Prayer in said appeal itself expressed mala fide intention of the employee

Appeal filed by the employee, was dismissed on the ground of limitation as well on merits; while appeal of the employer against the employee was allowed and impugned judgment was set aside with the finding that the employee was no more employee of the employer, and his grievance application was incompetent.

Grievance application of employee-petitioner was accepted on the ground that written statement was not signed by the employer company (respondent) and version of employee remained un-rebutted

Validity

Non-signing and verification of written statement by the authorized representative of the company was mistake which had been inadvertently committed

Application for correction of error in the written statement was pending but without deciding the same judgment had been passed

Labour Court had not considered that the grievance application could be barred by limitation or the said court could be devoid of jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter

Labour Court came to an erroneous conclusion that verification was not part of the pleadings and rectification could not be allowed

Labour Court should have allowed the application of company for making up the omission in the written statement by getting the same signed and verified

Omission to sign and verify the pleadings was only an irregularity and was curable at any stage of the proceedings

Such mission was not illegality likely to result in dismissal of suit

Labour Court should have called the employer company to sign and verify the written statement/pleadings at subsequent stage

Mere omission to insert the verification clause in the written statement did not entitle the Labour Court to non-suit the company

Such an irregularity was not material enough to out company from pleading its case on merits

Such irregularity could be cured by affording an opportunity to the party to rectify it at a later stage by allowing application for amendment of pleadings

Cases should be decided on merits and no one should be knocked out on the basis of technicalities

Impugned orders passed by the courts below were not speaking orders which were set aside

Case was remanded to the Labour Court for a decision afresh on merits subject to depositing back benefits within a specified period by the company which would be payable to the employee-petitioner

Nazir of the Court should invest the amount deposited in some profit bearing scheme

Company should have the right to file written statement which should be taken on record

Labour Court was directed to decide the matter within a specified period in accordance with law through speaking order

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Employees, who earlier formed their own union in the year 2009, dissolved their said union in the year 2012, and they intended to merge with the Collective Bargaining Agent (Union) in the employers' establishment, but Collective Bargaining Agent in the establishment did not allow membership to the employees

Said employees approached the Registrar Trade Unions, for issuance of the membership and deposit of monthly subscription

Registrar allowed the employees to deposit Rs.2400 each and cast their votes, and the employees deposited monthly subscription, but despite that appellants/Collective Bargaining Agents did not restore their membership, and did not allow the employer to deduct the monthly subscription from the salaries of the employees

Said employees approached the Labour Court for their redressal by filing grievance application

Labour Court allowed the application, with the direction to deposit Rs.3200 each in lump sum within 15 days

Validity

Labour Court had passed the impugned judgment in the light of evidence brought on record

Employees approached the Union to deposit the lump sum amount of Rs.3200 as directed by the Trial Court, but the Union was reluctant to receive the same, which prima facie seemed that Union was reluctant to comply with and obey the orders of the Labour Court, which would amount to contempt of the court

Union had failed to point out any illegality and irregularity in the impugned judgment passed by the Labour Court and any logic and legal proposition for demand of monthly subscription fee for 25 months, instead of 16 months

Employees had deposited amount as ordered by the Labour Court

Impugned order passed by the Labour Court did not suffer from any illegality or irregularity, same needed no interference

Registrar Trade Unions, was directed to ensure the compliance of the judgments by the parties.

Employee who rendered his services as "workman", for more than six years, was terminated without any cogent reasons, enquiry or show-cause notice

Services of the employee were governed and protected under the provision of S.O.1(b) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which had provided proper mechanism for termination of service

Under provisions of said Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, prior to taking final decision in case of termination of service of employee, he would be given fair opportunity of hearing through show-cause notice, conducting inquiry, but all such requisite formalities, were not observed in the case of employee, and employee, was condemned unheard

Objection of the employers that grievance application filed by the employee, was time-barred; and that no grievance notice was sent by the employee to the employers, being not sustainable, was overruled, as termination was communicated to the employee through E. Mail, and the employee issued grievance notice by E-Mail on after 8 days

Employee continuously approached the employers but they did not pay any heed to the grievance of the employee

Purpose of serving grievance notice was to bring the grievance in the notice of employer before approaching Labour Court

Law/Legislature had not provided a specific format for serving of grievance notice

Grievance notice, in circumstances, had been fully served in shape of said communication of the employee, with the employers

Fact that grievance notice was issued by the employee to the employers well in time, was not disputed by the employers

Employers, with mala fide intention delayed the decision by one or the other pretext by means of false assurance to the employee

Employee, having been terminated without adhering the mandatory provisions of law, Labour Court, had rightly accepted grievance application of the employee

No material illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment of the Labour Court, having been pointed out, same, was upheld, and appeal filed against said judgment was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner, who claimed to be General Secretary of Employees Union of the Establishment, had sought writ against the establishment, for declaration to the effect that actions and reactions of the establishment were unfair labour practice and refraining the establishment from terminating, removing, retrenching and dismissing the office-bearers and workers/members of the employees union, or from closing down the establishment

Validity

No application of the establishment was pending before the Labour Court for permission to close down the establishment and to terminate the services of its employees

Petitioner, in the capacity of individual worker or being representative/office-bearer of Labour Union, despite having the status of Collective Bargaining Agent, could not initiate proceedings on the basis of apprehended cause of action, which might have been in his mind, but did not exist actually

No vested right of the petitioner was likely to be affected for the simple reason that no such order was passed

Question of 'unfair labour practice' was linked with a separate and independent cause of action, which being a pure question of facts, required the evidence to prove or disprove the same and could not be agitated, and resolved in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court

Proper remedy under S.41 of Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, was available to the petitioner/Labour Union in case they were aggrieved from termination of services

Every employer had a right to terminate the services of his employee on the ground, which was legally available to it; provided that the procedure as contemplated by the prevailing law was followed in letter and spirit

Provisions of Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010 being basic and comprehensive in nature, had provided a complete procedure for redressal of any such grievance

Jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution, could not be invoked, when a well defined alternate remedy was already available to the petitioner

Petition which involved the disputed question of facts could not be entertained in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court Establishment in question, was a private limited company being a body corporate against which the petition under Art.199 of the Constitution, was not maintainable.

Permanent employee, allegedly was terminated verbally from service; while the Establishment had contended that worker himself disappeared

Establishment claimed that termination letter was issued to the worker, but failed to produce any such letter and also admitted that neither charge sheet was issued to the worker nor enquiry was conducted against him

Violation of Standing Orders 12(3) & 15(4) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, having been established, worker was rightly reinstated in service with back benefits including bonuses.

Applicant/employee who was working initially with "C Limited" claimed that after his appointment, he was treated to be in the employment of "I Limited" and both companies were part of "J Group of Companies"

Employee had admitted that his case was against "C Limited"

Both companies were private limited companies, and when the grievance application was filed before the Labour Court, none of those companies were made party and only Directors and Managers had been sued

Employee ought to have sued the Companies as well, which were independent juristic entities

Employee being a 'workman', instead of nullifying whole proceedings, while setting aside the judgments of both courts below, High Court directed the employee to file amended title, impleading both the companies as party and thereafter fresh notice would be issued by the Labour Court, on their addressees; and after the defence that could be set up by such Companies, the Labour Court would dispose of the matter in accordance with law.

Both posts being permanent in nature, it could not be said that appointment and job of the employees were temporary in nature

Employees falling within the category of permanent employees, Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 fully applied in their cases

Grievance applications had been filed with delay of 22 days; though sufficient cause was not mentioned in application for condonation of delay, but the employees could not be deprived of their rights on the grounds of limitation for the reason that they during their services approached the Authority and court for the regularization of their services

Embargo of limitation was not applicable to said employees

Courts always encourage the decision of the cases on merits, rather the litigant be non-suited on technical grounds including the point of limitation

Impugned withdrawal order, was set aside being without lawful authority

Tribunal directed that difference of the salaries of the employees be paid as regular employees.

If the period from date of announcement of impugned judgment of the Labour Court and after delivery of certified copy of impugned judgment was excluded, even then the appeal was filed with a delay of 54 days and that period of delay had not been explained

Even void order could be set aside by process of law, but within reasonable period

Delay of each and every day was to be explained, but same had not been done in the case

Point of limitation and condonation of delay was a pure question of law, and courts were under legal obligation to take notice of the same, even if the point had not been raised by the parties

Appeal filed by the employers was hopelessly barred which accurated a right in favour of employee and same could not be condoned without any sufficient cause

Impugned order was upheld and appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Negotiation with the employers having failed, applicant approached Labour Court by filing grievance application, which was dismissed on ground of lack of jurisdiction

Validity

No unfair labour practice was involved

Impugned judgment of Labour Court, was set aside, with the direction that employers should negotiate with applicant unions in respect of charter of demand in the presence of Registrar Trade Union, in accordance with law.

Case of employee was that to eliminate the Trade Union in the establishment, employer transferred number of workers to other establishment and under such threat of transfer obtained resignation from number of workers and that employers got his signatures on resignation under such threat

Employers, in reply/statement had asserted that resignation of the employee was voluntary and that grievance notice of the employee was time-barred

Labour Court allowed the grievance petition filed by the employee

Validity

Only the office bearers and members of the Union were served with transfer letters and no other worker was transferred to other establishment which would mean that same had been served/issued with mala fide intention in order to remove the union from the scene

Delay of few days in serving grievance notice, in circumstances, could be condoned, as the entire action of the employers, was based on mala fides

Labour Court had rightly ignored the said legal objection of the employers, and had considered the grievance application within time

Impugned order of the Labour Court was unexceptional, in circumstances.

Employee was appointed as cashier and was declared a management cadre officer, (Assistant Manager and Manager operations) and was also given power of attorney, whereby he was authorized to do all transactions on behalf of the Bank; and such power/authority had not to be given to a "worker" or "workman"

Grievance application under S.41 of Balochistan Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2010, was mandatorily to be issued by the employee himself or through shop steward, or trade union, was issued by his counsel which was in violation of S.41 of the Ordinance

Grievance application filed by the employee, was not maintainable, in circumstances

Contention of the employee was that as no provision having been mentioned in memo. of appeal filed by the employers, was not competent

Validity

Omission to mention the provision under which appeal had been filed or wrong mentioning of provision was not an illegality, whereof the appeal be dismissed

Contention was repelled, in circumstances

Appeal was allowed, impugned order passed by Lower Court, was set aside, in circumstances.

Applicants initially were appointed by the company on permanent posts between 2002 to 2008, whereafter through an agreement, company asked the said employees to work under "Consultant" to accomplish the company work

Company while appointing the employees did not issue appointment letter and thereafter terminated their services without issuing them any notice on the ground that company had cancelled the contract of said Consultant; and that said Consultant terminated the services of the applicants who were working with the Consultant under his control

Labour Court rejected grievance application of the employees against termination order

Validity

Employees had claimed that they were employed by the company and they were working there since last many years

Claim of the employees was that contractor namely 'Consultant' was the agent of company and the agreement was a fictitious document

Contract labour was resorted by the employer to escape from the application of Labour Laws and deprive workers of their legitimate rights

Law makers did not make any distinction between workers employed directly or through a contractor

"Worker" and "workman" in S.2(dd) of Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, would mean person not falling within the definition of employee who was employed in an establishment or industry for hire or reward, either directly or through contractor

Workmen, whether employed directly or through an Agency who were engaged to do any of the job listed in the manufacturing process, were covered as "workmen"; and it was employer's liability to provide their rights and benefits under the law, which did not draw any distinction between workers directly employed and workers employed through an agency or contractor

Employer company could not establish non-relationship of the applicants with it

Employees having been terminated illegally, impugned judgment of the Labour Court was set aside with the direction that employees be reinstated by means of permanent appointment letters.

Employee filed grievance application after delay of two years and nine months, which application was dismissed being barred by time

Charge-sheet issued to the employee did not show any loss to the employer Bank and in all charge-sheets it was mentioned that his acts amounted to gross misconduct and were in violation of Bank Staff Service Rules, which warranted disciplinary action against him

Employee served the bank for a long period of 26 years and was awarded with many appreciation letters and cash awards during his service

Employer Bank, while dismissing the employee, was under obligation to consider the previous satisfactory service of the employee

Letter of charges and dismissal order on ground of misconduct, was modified to the compulsory retirement with effect from the date of termination, with the benefit admissible under the Bank Rules to the employee

Appeal was partly allowed with said modification.

Appellant/employee whose service were verbally terminated, served grievance notice on respondent/employer after more than six months from termination of his services, whereas under provisions of S.46(1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, appellant could bring his grievance to the notice of his employer within one month of his termination

Total period available to appellant for approaching the Labour Court was three months and fifteen days, but he filed grievance application after eight months and eleven days

Appellant made an attempt to get delay condoned on the ground that verbal termination order was void and no limitation would run against void order

Appellant having not adopted procedure provided by S.46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 for redressal of his grievance, delay which had occurred on account of his negligence could not be condoned

Dismissal of grievance application of appellant/employee on ground that it was time-barred, was unexceptionable calling for no interference

Appeal against judgment of Labour Court being without' any merits, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Services of employee serving as Assistant in Bank, were terminated after charge-sheeting him and holding inquiry against him on ground of misconduct

Allegation against employee was that he effected bogus balancing of ledgers

Said bogus entries were not denied by the employee in his statement before Enquiry Officer

Labour Court while acting contrary to the evidence available on record based on entries made in the relevant registers and ledgers not denied by the employee, granted relief to employee on the premises that the Bank had not suffered any pecuniary loss and allegedly misappropriated amount was deposited by him later on

Validity

Bank acts as custodian of the public money and the amount whatsoever was deposited, was required to be credited in the accounts of customer without any delay and no sooner the trust reposed by the customer on the Bank was shaken, the Bank would not be in a position to run its business

Merely for the reason that at a subsequent stage the misappropriated amount was deposited, would not constitute a mitigating circumstance in favour of employee to hold that he was entitled for reinstatement into service

As soon as misappropriation of public money was established, delinquent would be deemed guilty of embezzlement

No leniency, in circumstances could be shown to the employee

Employee, in the present case, had been found misappropriating public money from the Bank, which could be temporary, but as far as charge was concerned, it stood established without doubt, leaving no option for employer, except dismissing him from service to meet the ends of justice

Impugned order passed by the Labour Court whereby employee was reinstated, was set aside by the High Court.