Grievance Petition

The petitioner was appointed as a financial analyst by respondent No.1 in 2007, and his services were terminated in 2016; after issuance of a grievance notice, the petitioner filed a grievance petition

During the proceedings, respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed an application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C., contending that the petitioner was not a workman and, therefore, the grievance petition was not maintainable; application was allowed and the grievance petition was dismissed, prompting the petitioner to file an appeal, which was also dismissed resulting in the filing of the present constitutional petition

Moot question before the High Court was as to "whether the petitioner was a workman or not?"

Held: For maintaining a grievance petition by an employee before the forums provided under the labour laws for settlement of an industrial dispute or a case of unfair labour practice, the basic requirement was that the person approaching the said court should be a worker or a workman as contemplated in S.2(xxxiii) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and the initial burden to prove this fact lay upon the employee who has brought the lis before the court, so as to prove that his nature of work is ministerial or clerical and not managerial or administrative and this fact has to be proved by him through his oral as well as documentary evidence

The appointment letter of the petitioner transpired that not a single word had been mentioned therein about the nature of the duties assigned to the petitioner so as to determine that he was a workman or not

Since there was nothing or the record wherefrom this could be culled out that what duties had been assigned to the petitioner as a financial analyst wherefrom his status could be determined and for proving the said fact it was mandatory that the parties should be directed to produce their respective evidence whereupon a decision could be made regarding the status of the petitioner as a workman or otherwise as at the preliminary stage no determination could be made, therefore, impugned orders were not sustainable in law

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

It was admitted from the record that initially the petitioner was appointed as Electrician on 06-12-1994, thereafter his post was re-designated as Sub-Engineer and then he was promoted as Senior Associate Engineer

Record revealed that the petitioner was an active member of Employees Union SNGPL, and his (exhibited ) salary slips showed that union dues were deducted from his salary

Record revealed that no documentary evidence had been produced by the respondents regarding nature of duties of the petitioner

Respondents had failed to produce any suitable material which showed that the petitioner had power of managerial post

Record also revealed that two inquiry reports were submitted (having been exhibited / marked ) by the respondents against the petitioner

First inquiry report dated 16-07-2014 was submitted by the petitioner which was produced by the respondents on 12-04-2016 before the Commission

Second inquiry report dated 14-07-2015 was submitted by the respondents in the statement of the only witness they produced

Cross-examination conducted on said witness revealed that, he admitted that the inquiry report had been submitted in the Commission, and in reply to most of the questions put to him he said "I don't know"

It was admitted from the record that the charge sheet was issued on 16-07-2014 and petitioner was dismissed from service on 26-08-2018

After lapse of 3/4 years from the date of vacation of stay order dated 20-08-2015, the respondents had dismissed the petitioner from service vide order 26-06-2018

It was established from the record that the respondents had submitted two fake and ambiguous inquiry reports before the Commission and tempered and changed the record which showed mala fide on their part

It was also admitted from the record that the inquiry officer had not appeared before the Commission

Respondents remained unsuccessful in proving that petitioner was not a workman

Commission set-aside the impugned dismissal vide letter dated 26-08-2018 issued against the petitioner being illegal and without justification and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of his alleged dismissal from service vide letter dated 26-08-2018 with all back benefits

Grievance petition was allowed accordingly.

Pertinently, the present case had been remanded by the Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission ('Full Bench') to decide the same preferably within two months and to implead contractor (Ask Development) as a party

Orders sheet of the (present) petition showed that Ask Development had been impleaded as party (as Respondents Nos.6 and 7) and several notices had been issued to them to file their written reply but they showed their lack of interest in the matter and deliberately lingered on the matter and later (on 24-01-2024), their right of filing written reply was closed

According to the NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 2016, "for the expeditious disposal of the business before the Commission, it may direct any examination or cross-examination or re-examination to be cut short or dispensed with"

So on the verbal request of counsels for the parties for the expeditious disposal of the case, the Commission dispensed with the requirement of recording of evidence in the matter

Even, in the remanding order, the Full Bench mentioned that the Trial Court, of it felt necessary, to record evidence of the parties and decide the matter preferably within two months

Thus, , the present matter did not require further evidence as it was a very simple case and everything was clear in it and the counsels for the parties also agreed to decide the case without recording of evidence

National Industrial Relations Commission set-aside the impugned termination from service letter issued against the petitioner, being illegal and without justification; directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of his alleged termination

Grievance petition was allowed.

Plea of the Respondents / PTCL was that the petitioner was not their employee but of contractor (Ask Development) which was evident from an appointment letter dated 07-02-2017 issued by Ask Development which was signed by petitioner

Validity

Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on 03-03-2001 as Lab Technician ; whereas, annexed appointment letter of Respondents/ PTCL, having been signed by the their Assistant General Manager (S&E) M.TR, also showed that the petitioner was directly appointed by PTCL and there was no mention of Ask Development in said appointment order

Therefore, the petitioner was actually employee of PTCL and not Ask Development

Thus, Ask Development was dummy contractor having no authority over the petitioner

Petitioner served more than 15 years with the Respondents / PTCL, thus, how was it possible that the petitioner was terminated from service by Ask Development on 11-05-2020

Letter dated 07-02-2017 by the Respondent/contractor (Ask Development) was based on mala fide and it had no legal status

It was evident from the record (salary slip etc.) that the petitioner had directly received his monthly salary from Respondents / PTCL, showing that the petitioner was on the pay roll of the respondents / PTCL and worked under the management of the respondents / PTCL and not of Respondent / contractor (Ask Development)

Record also showed that on 23-12-2005, an investigation committee, consisting of three members of respondents / PTCL, had been made for investigation of daily wages employees and the said committee verified 34 employees and the petitioner was also included in the said list at serial number 34

Thus, the present matter did not require further evidence as it was a very simple case and everything was clear in it and the counsels for the parties also agreed to decide the case without recording of evidence

National Industrial Relations Commission set-aside the impugned termination from service letter issued against the petitioner being illegal and without justification; directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of his alleged termination

Grievance petition was allowed.

Record showed that the petitioner was terminated from service without issuing any show-cause notice and without holding any inquiry

It was established that the petitioner had been terminated from service without observing prescribed procedure as provided under the provisions of Standing Order 15(4) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (S.O.) Ordinance, 1968

Thus, the action of the respondents / PTCL was illegal, without jurisdiction and not sustainable in the eyes of law

National Industrial Relations Commission set-aside the impugned termination from service letter issued against the petitioner, being illegal and without justification; directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the date of his alleged termination

Grievance petition was allowed.

Respondent/employee while working as Operator with petitioner-company was proceeded under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 (Ordinance) on the allegation of misconduct

Duties, being performed by a person, are determining factor to adjudge as to whether he/she is a workman or not

Prosecution witnesses deposed in their examination in-chief that respondent had been performing duties of manual nature, thus, the plea of petitioner-company that the accused employee did not fall within the category of a workman, being contrary to the record, could not be given any weightage

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent/employee for alleged violation of Standing Order No.15(3)(a) & (h) of the Ordinance, which starts with the words that a workman may be reprimanded or fined meaning thereby that the same is meant for a worker

Respondent filed grievance petition under S.33 of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 (Act) and the preamble thereof shows that the same has inter alia been enacted to regulate relations between employers and workmen

From inception of disciplinary proceedings upto issuance of dismissal letter of respondent, the petitioner-company itself had been relying upon different provisions of the Ordinance

Punishments provided under Standing Order 15 of the Ordinance are only meant for a workman and if the same was inapplicable to respondent, the entire proceedings conducted against him would stand nullified

Employer could not be allowed to blow hot and cold in the same breath inasmuch as once the status of a person had been admitted as workman, the same could not be allowed to be retracted without any change in the nature of his work

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Record revealed that, admittedly, when the adverse action was taken by the respondent / Bank, the petitioner was working as an officer of Grade-III and his salary and terms and conditions were governed by the Pay Commission Award meant for Officers and Executives as at the relevant time the respondent / Bank was a Nationalized Bank, which fact even had been admitted by the petitioner in his cross-examination

Thus, the petitioner could not have claimed to be a workman at the same time as his wages were not as per the Wage Commission Award for workman

On perusal of the grievance petition, it did not reflect that the petitioner ever made any effort to establish with any supporting material that he was a workman and not an officer of the Bank

The initial burden in said regard was fully on the petitioner which he had failed to discharge

Petitioner, on query while appearing in-person, had stated that he was assigned the job of clearing/dealing with the pay orders received in the Bank and that he was also using a password provided by the Computer System of the Bank for performing his job

Said assignment , by itself, was not a job of workman and that too working in a Bank

Even if an employee does not have any powers to hire or fire, any person, this by itself would not mean that he is a workman

The nature of job as performed by the person must be evident from the record produced by him and then it has to be determined from perusal of such record as to whether he has to be categorized as a workman doing manual and clerical work or was discharging his functions in a managerial and supervisory role

Thus, Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission was fully justified in setting aside the order of the Labour Court and in returning the petition to the petitioner for presenting it before a forum of appropriate jurisdiction

No case for interference by the High Court was made out

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner /employee invoked constitutional petition against the judgment passed by the Single Bench National Industrial Relations Commission ('NIRC'), contenting that NIRC had wrongly passed judgment against him without framing issues and adducing evidence

Validity

Record revealed that an undated text message (SMS) was issued by the respondent (General Manager) to the petitioner (employee), wherein he was directed to submit his resignation

Consequently , the petitioner on receipt of said text message issued Grievance Notice to the respondents (Employer) through e-mail and requested for withdrawal of said notice (text message)

However, thereafter the respondents kept silent until the petitioner preferred a Grievance Petition under S. 33 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, before the NIRC, which was contested by the respondents (employer), but unfortunately the Single Bench NIRC, without adverting to the merits of the case, dismissed the Grievance Petition of the petitioner in a summarily manner without providing opportunity to the petitioner to prove his case by leading evidence

Even otherwise, the Single Bench NIRC had failed to frame issues out of the pleadings of the parties and to record evidence

Thus, in absence of any evidence, various aspects/questions of case (issuance of Show-Cause Notice / Termination Letter/Grievance Notice or other wise, etc.) could not be ascertained

Answers of such questions were missing in the impugned judgment of the Single Bench NIRC, which resulted in miscarriage of justice with the petitioner/employee and he was condemned unheard

High Court while setting aside the impugned judgment remanded the matter to the Single Bench, National Industrial Relations Commission, with directions for a decision afresh after providing fair opportunity to the parties to lead evidence in support of their contentions

Constitution petition, filed by the employee, was allowed, in circumstances.

Grievance of the Worker, who was initially appointed in pay-scale-02 , was that he ought to have been appointed in pay-scale -05

Labour Court dismissed grievance petition of the worker for having been filed after sixteen years of accrual of his alleged grievance

Employer (Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd.) invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court as the Labour Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal') allowed appeal preferred by the worker reversing the findings of the Labour Court holding the limitation was mere technicality

Validity

Ambit of the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court is not that of a subsequent forum of statutory appeal and is restricted inter alia to appreciate whether any manifest illegality is apparent from the judgment impugned

It is also duty of High Court to ensure that any discretion exercised by the subordinate forum was done judiciously pursuant to sound legal principles and not contrary to law or usage having the force of law

In the present case, evidence (including the relevant cross-examination) having been adduced by the grievance petitioner (worker) in the proceedings before the Labour Court demonstrated that the petitioner was aware of his pay-scale at the time of his appointment in the year 1995; he admitted having received the salary from time to time and clearly stated that the terms of engagement never said that his employment would be in pay-scale 5

Prescriptions of limitation are not mere technicalities and disregard thereof would render entire law of limitation otiose

It is incumbent upon the Courts to first determine whether the proceedings filed before them were within time and the Courts are mandated to conduct such a exercise regardless of whether or not an objection has been taken in such regard

Each day of delay had to be explained

Section 34 of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 provides a time-period of three months for a worker to bring his grievance to light, from the date of accrual of cause

In the present case, the cause was brought to light well beyond the limitation period and said fact had not been controverted in the impugned judgment

High Court observed that the Tribunal erred in disregarding the applicable law of limitation

Evidence before the Tribunal did not support its finding, which , prima facie, were rested on unjustified surmises and conjectures

Tribunal articulated no cavil to the grievance being hopelessly time-barred, however, inordinately disregarded the law of limitation while terming the same merely technical

High Court viewed that the impugned judgment was predicated upon erroneous assumption of facts misapplication of the law, hence, could not be sustained

High Court set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal

Constitutional petition filed by the employer, was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioner / employer company was aggrieved of acceptance of grievance petition of respondent / workman which resulted into regularization of his service

Plea raised by petitioner / employer company was that grievance petition was filed by respondent / workman before expiry of fifteen days from the date of issuance of grievance notice

Validity

Provisions of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 do not render grievance petition filed before expiry of fifteen days as premature

Petitioner / employer company issued reply to grievance notice during pendency of grievance petition and such development had no adverse bearing on the prayer of respondent / workman in grievance petition

Petitioner / employer company was adamant in denying rights and privileges of a permanent workman to respondent / workman at all material stages

Rights and privileges of a permanent workman guaranteed or secured to respondent / workman by law were to be granted to him by operation of law which could not be fettered, restricted or denied through an executive fiat

High Court declined to interfere with concurrent orders passed by National Industrial Relation Commission

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner / employer company was aggrieved of acceptance of grievance petition of respondent / employee by National Industrial Relation Commission

Contention of petitioner / employer company was that respondent / employee was not covered under the definition provided for "worker" in Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and fora below had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition

Validity

Documents produced by respondent / employee manifested that respondent / employee was worker who had been taking part in union activities

Respondent / employee remained General Secretary of All Pakistan OGDCL Mazdoor Ittihad Union (CBA) so objection with regard to jurisdiction of fora below was turned down

Complete appraisal of record was thoroughly done by both the fora below

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts by two fora of National Industrial Relation Commission, as there was no infirmity in their reasoning

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioner company was aggrieved of bidding process and order passed by Grievance Redressal Committee dismissing the complaint

Validity

If a procuring entity failed to decide complaint within the stipulated time period, which was eight days as envisaged in R.6 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Procurement Grievance Redressal Rules, 2017, an aggrieved bidder could file appeal with the Authority

Petitioner filed appeal after more than 3 months and 23 days, which appeal was rejected by Competent Authority

Appeal filed by petitioner was barred by time without any cogent and convincing reason for condonation of delay

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Question before High Court was whether the respondent as an Officer Grade-III employee of the petitioner (Bank) ceased to have the status of a workman on account of the power of attorney having been executed in his favour

Validity

Powers that were given to respondent under the power of attorney were of a managerial and supervisory nature

Such powers took the respondent out of the ambit and meaning of a workman

Constitutional petition was allowed, impugned order passed by Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) was set aside and the order passed by Member, National Industrial Relations Commission, was restored.

Petitioner, asserted that the department advertised several posts and the petitioner applied for the post of Stenographer BS-15; that he qualified the test and interview for the post of Stenographer but he was appointed as a Steno-typist in BS-12; that one of the other candidates had secured 65 marks whereas he had secured 70 marks but the said candidate was appointed at Stenographer and the petitioner was appointed as Steno-typist in violation of merit and prayed that he might be treated at par with the said candidate as he was qualified and was illegally appointed as Steno-typist

Validity

Petitioner was appointed in the year 2008 and had been working as Steno-typist for a period of 10 years

Grievance petition was filed without any application for condonation of delay

Petition, being hit by limitation, was not maintainable and was accordingly dismissed.

Grievance petition would only be competent if the grievance was with regard to a 'right guaranteed under law, settlement, or award'

Word law used in S. 37(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010 meant that it had to be a legal right guaranteed by the statute and not a policy of the organization.

Grievance petition would only be competent if the grievance was with regard to a 'right guaranteed under law, settlement, or award'

Word law used in S. 37(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010 meant that it had to be a legal right guaranteed by the statute and not a policy of the organization.

Grievance petition would only be competent if the grievance was with regard to a 'right guaranteed under law, settlement, or award'

Word law used in S. 37(1) of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010 meant that it had to be a legal right guaranteed by the statute and not a policy of the organization.

Single Member of NIRC, relying on prohibitory clause of Power of Attorney (which was assigned to the petitioner), reinstated him declaring him a workman, whereas Full Bench of NIRC set-aside order of Single Member relying yet another clause of the said Power of Attorney

Held, that another clause of Power of Attorney in question confirmed that the petitioner was performing duties/functions of administrative nature which fell in the managerial and supervisory domain

Single Member of NIRC relying on other clause of Power of Attorney (prohibiting certain functions) was misconceived since powers under the Power of Attorney were usually confined to primary and specific functions performed by an employee and , therefore, at times prohibited certain functions which did not fall within the scope of his assignment

Correct approach would be to read the said Power of Attorney as a whole and give more weight to tasks entrusted upon the employee (i.e. what he could do,) rather than what he was prohibited to do

Reading said Power of Attorney as a whole confirmed that the assignments entrusted to the petitioner were that of managerial in nature/character

Clause 12 of said Power of Attorney was the only prohibitory clause putting restrictions upon the petitioner regarding assignments which he could not do singly but could do in collaboration with another officer, therefore, Single Member of NIRC had completely misread said clause in isolation, to conclude that the petitioner was a "workmen"

Officers Grade-I to III were not "workmen"

Description of work and assigned tasks of an employee were relevant to determine the status of a workman or otherwise

Petitioner was not a workman and thus not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of NIRC

No illegality or unconstitutionality was found in the impugned order passed by the Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Term 'establishment' could not be extended to include a department running the affairs of Government rather it did mean any office or firm having employees or workers for the purpose of carrying on any business or industry having no nexus with Government Departments

Persons who were serving in connection with the affairs of Province or even the employees of Provincial Government deputed to serve with a statutory corporation or with a non-government employer were "Government servants"

Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, had no application to such employees

Employees serving in the Communication and Works Department did not fall within the purview of "worker" or "workman"

Petitioner was in government employment and laws meant for "workers" and "workman" were not applicable in his case

Courts below had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition of employee

Impugned judgments passed by the Courts below were declared void and of no legal effect, in circumstance

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Impugned order for withdrawal of promotion of employees had been issued without any show-cause notice or conducting any inquiry

Even no opportunity of personal hearing had been afforded to the employees in the case

No illegality or irregularity had been committed while passing the promotion orders of the employees

Once promotion had been granted and employees commenced their work as promoted appointees, then a right had accrued in their favour

Employees were to be afforded a fair opportunity of hearing before passing an adverse order against them

High Court, in the present case, under Constitutional jurisdiction could not pass any direction to the Authority for issuing promotion order of the employees

Promotion was not an automatic right but it depended upon competence, availability of post and antecedent

Promotion on the basis of education could not be claimed nor Courts below were competent to pass order for promotion rather it was the domain of the Authority (company) to consider the cases for promotion

Order for withdrawal of promotion of the employees was not based on any explicit reason

Impugned order had been passed in accordance with law

Company/Authority was directed to restore the employees to their positions to which they were posted prior to the impugned order

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Date of birth once recorded at the time of joining service would be final and thereafter no alteration in the same was permissible

Employee had filed the grievance petition at the verge of his retirement

Authenticity of date of birth recorded in service book could not be challenged belatedly

Impugned orders were declared void and of no legal effect

Grievance petition filed by the employee was dismissed

Constitutional petition was accepted, in circumstances.

Contention of Company was that employee was not "worker" and grievance petition was not maintainable before Labour Court

Validity

Employee at the time of termination of his service was performing duty of Manager Excise

Company had terminated the services of employee in accordance with the service rules applicable to him in lieu of notice

Employee was incharge of his section and was performing the supervisory duty

Petitioner-employee had initiated annual confidential reports, made recommendations for promotion and extension of period of service and had also recommended leave applications of his subordinates

Employee was not "worker", in circumstance

Labour Court had failed to appreciate the evidence on record and had wrongly held that employee was a "worker"

Impugned judgment passed by the Labour Court was not sustainable in the eye of law which was set aside

Grievance petition filed by the employee was dismissed

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Status and designation of a person was not merely a determining factor to judge him to be a "workman" rather the nature of duties being performed by him

Petitioner was a Manager Operation of a Bank and the duties assigned to him were supervisory in nature

Petitioner did not fall within the definition of 'workman' as duties performed by him were managerial

Courts below had rightly dismissed grievance petition of the petitioner on the ground of maintainability

No illegality or jurisdictional error had been pointed out in the impugned findings recorded by the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Contention of employees was that they were employees of the company but it had refused to deduct Trade Union subscription

Validity

Trade Union had been registered by the Registrar Trade Unions Sindh

Petitioners were employees of the contractors and question for deduction of union subscription did not arise

Petitioners were neither employees of trans-provincial establishment nor that of the company

Labour Union had not been registered with Registrar Trade Union National Industrial Relations Commission

Petitioners had remedy for registration under S.34 of Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2013 but same had not been availed

Grievance petition had not been signed by the General Secretary and President of the Union

Petitioner being a provincial Union could not invoke the jurisdiction of National Industrial Relation Commission and right forum was the Labour Court

Grievance petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Single Member of National Industrial Relations Commission accepted grievance petition and employee was reinstated into service without back benefits

Validity

Allegations of misconduct had been proved during disciplinary proceedings against the employee

Petitioner-employee had participated in the departmental inquiry and he was satisfied with the inquiry conducted by the inquiry officer

Impugned dismissal order was proper, legal and justified

Supreme Court while directing abatement of proceedings had allowed ninety days' time to approach the proper forum

Limitation provided under S.46 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, was not applicable in the present case in view of pronouncement of Supreme Court

Employee was bound to approach the proper forum within ninety days

Limitation was not to be counted from the date the case was returned by the Service Tribunal but from the date of judgment of Supreme Court

Grievance petition was filed after four years from the date of judgment of Supreme Court

No application for condonation of delay had been filed by the employee

Limitation could not be condoned without such an application

Grievance petition filed by the employee was time barred, in circumstances

Employee had not served grievance notice upon the Bank before filing of grievance petition

Petitioner-employee was negligent and he was not fit for banking job

No master could afford to retain a servant whose integrity was doubtful

Misconduct had been established against the employee during inquiry proceedings

Single Member of National Industrial Relations Commission had erred in the law and committed irregularity and illegality while passing the impugned order which was set aside by Full Bench of Commission and grievance petition was dismissed

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

Petitioners-employees were issued show-cause notice for appointments on the basis of fake educational testimonials against which they filed grievance petition without of grievance notice to the employer which was dismissed being not maintainable

Validity

Initiating disciplinary proceedings against a worker on account of misconduct was a legal right of employer

Issuance of show-cause notice did not mean that the case would be invariably decided against the petitioners and there was always a possibility that same might be decided in favour of employees

Employees before recourse to the national Industrial Relations Commission should have given grievance notice to the employer of his grievance in writing

Petitioners had not served a grievance notice to the employer in the present case

Procedure provided in Industrial Relations Act, 2012, was mandatory

Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, would not apply in case of the establishment having statutory rules of service

Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985, were non-statutory rules of service and Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, was applicable in the present case

If any action was to be taken against the employees then same should be taken in conformity with the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968

Provisions of Standing Order 15 of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, were mandatory and their non-observance would vitiate the entire proceedings

Company should ensure fundamental right of fair trial and due process in the proceedings against the employees

Grievance petition against show-cause notice was not maintainable in circumstances

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Employee filed grievance petition which was dismissed by single member of the National Industrial Relation Commission holding that petitioner was appointed on the basis of graduation in second division whereas he had passed graduation in third division

Validity

Services of petitioner-employee were terminated without issuing either charge sheet or show-cause notice

Employee was a "workman" under Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulation, 1985, were non-statutory in nature

Petitioner would enjoy the protection of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and his services would not be governed by non-statutory regulations of the Corporation

In case of termination of employment in violation of Standing Order 12(3) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, it was sufficient that the workman concerned did fall within the definition of 'workman' given in S.2(i) of said Ordinance and he need not to be covered by the definition of the 'workman' and 'worker' given in S.2(xxxiii) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012

Petitioner had been dismissed without affording a fair and proper opportunity by dispensing with the inquiry in violation of mandatory provisions of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and principles of natural justice

Provisions of S.O. 15(4) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, were mandatory and their non-observance was sufficed to vitiate the entire proceedings

Impugned order passed by the Single Member of National Industrial Relations Commission and termination letter were set aside by the Full Bench of the Commission and employee was reinstated in service

Corporation might have an option to proceed against the employee for alleged misconduct in accordance with law

Appeal was allowed, in circumstances.

When no case of unfair labour practice had been made out from the contents of grievance petition then recording of evidence would be a futile exercise

Initiating disciplinary proceedings against a worker on account of misconduct was a legal right of the employer and restraining him from exercising such right would tantamount to pre-empting his decision which could not be a scheme of law

Issuance of show-cause notice did not mean that the case would be decided against the employee

Mere issuance of a show cause notice did not amount to adverse action

Nothing was on record that employee was involved in trade union activities which irked the employer or caused him to issue show-cause notice to him

Mere fact that employee happened to be a member/officer of a trade union would not give him a cause under S.31 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 to invoke the jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission

Disciplinary proceedings had been initiated against the employee on the ground that he had submitted forged documents

Issuance of show-cause notice and initiation of inquiry proceedings for just cause did not amount to an unfair labour practice

Grievance petition was not maintainable, in circumstances

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Nothing was on record whether these holidays were legally permissible or not and whether salary against those days had been deducted from the account of employee

Inquiry committee had not adverted to the period of absence or total number of days the employee had taken off without permission of employers

Employee was proceeded against in undue haste

Impugned findings were not based on evidence but on his admission of fault

Employee had not been confronted with precise allegations by the inquiry committee for defense

High Court observed that employee had twenty years of service and he should have been retired instead of dismissal

Impugned dismissal order was modified into compulsory retirement/removal from service

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Petitioner seeking through Constitutional petition the implementation of order passed by National Industrial Relations Commission

Contention of petitioner was that order passed by the High Court for disposal of appeal pending before Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission had not been implemented

Validity

High Court passed order for disposal of matter between the parties on the day fixed for hearing

High Court observed that Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission should decide the appeal of petitioner in accordance with law within a period of one month and operation of impugned order passed on behalf of employer was suspended till decision of appeal

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Employee was terminated from service against which grievance petition was accepted by the Labour Court without back benefits but Labour Appellate Tribunal remanded the matter for decision on merits including point of maintainability of grievance petition

Validity

Employee company had failed to get examined the complainant and star witnesses of alleged incident

Evidence of said witnesses was necessary to corroborate the respondent's case

Respondent had examined only Inquiry Officer before the Court but no reliance could be placed on his evidence as he was not eye witness of alleged misconduct

Withholding of star witnesses would create an impression that the said witnesses if produced might not have supported the employer's case

No opportunity during domestic inquiry had been provided to the employee to produce his witnesses

No reliance could be placed on the inquiry report in circumstances

Employer company had failed to prove that employee during dismissal period remained in gainful employment

Employee during dismissal period did not remain in gainful employment, in circumstances

Service of employee had been terminated illegally and he was entitled for reinstatement with all the back benefits

Impugned order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal was set aside and grievance petition was accepted as prayed for

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Services of employee were hired verbally by the employer company but same were dispensed with without issuing any letter of termination

Employee filed grievance petition but same was dismissed concurrently

Validity

Employee was worker of the contractor and he rendered his service for the employer-company

Agreement executed between the parties had expired

Service of employee was hired for a specific period and he had received salary for the same

Employee had worked through third party contractor, he was not employee of the company but he was worker of a private contractor who had hired his service for the company

Employee stood relieved from his service automatically after expiry of agreement with the contractor

Employee could not claim reinstatement of his service in the employer company and if he had any claim he should have made contractor as party in the proceedings but he had failed to do so for reason best known to him

Concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below could not be interfered with unless some question of law or erroneous appreciation of evidence was made out

Courts below had considered every aspect of the case while appreciating evidence adduced by the parties

No illegality or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Employees were terminated from service against which grievance petition was accepted and they were reinstated with back benefits

Contention of respondent was that employees were not permanent workers and they could not be reinstated into service with back benefits

Validity

Duties assigned to the employees were of manual nature which did fall within the ambit of a worker and workman

Concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below could not be interfered with unless some question of law or erroneous appreciation of evidence was made out

Courts below had dilated upon the issues in an elaborative manner and recorded its findings by appreciating the evidence of the parties

High Court in constitutional jurisdiction could not interfere in concurrent findings recorded by the competent fora below

No illegality, infirmity or material irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Grievance petition filed by petitioner was dismissed as barred by time but National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) directed her to return the salary received by her

Validity

Petitioner was not required to return salaries drawn by her during service

No occasion existed for NIRC to have burdened petitioner with such liability, especially when employer did not file appeal for such relief

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside the order passed by NIRC to the extent of requiring petitioner to return the salaries drawn by her during her service

Petitioner's grievance petition before NIRC was barred by limitation and the same should have been dismissed as such

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Grievance petition was dismissed against which employee filed constitutional petition and in the meanwhile he was dismissed from service

Constitutional petition was dismissed with the observation that employee would be at liberty to challenge his dismissal order before appropriate forum

Employee filed grievance petition against his dismissal order but same was dismissed being time barred

Validity

Cause for petitioner's grievance arose when he was dismissed from service

Petitioner-employee had not served upon the employer with grievance notice against his dismissal order

Employee could take his grievance to the National Industrial Relations Commission only if his employer had failed to communicate a decision within a period of fifteen days of the submission of grievance notice or if employer had given a decision against the employee on his grievance notice

Grievance petition could be filed within a period of sixty days from the date of communication of employer's decision or after the expiry of fifteen days of the issuance of grievance notice

Employee, in the present case, had not satisfied the prerequisite of service of a grievance notice on the employer against his dismissal order for filing a grievance petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission

Grievance petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission without service of a grievance notice on the employer was not maintainable

Petitioner had not served a grievance notice on the employer against his dismissal order, his grievance petition before the National Industrial Relations Commission was not maintainable

High Court could not exempt the petitioner from fulfilling the requirements of S.33 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012, for filing a grievance petition

Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.

Interlocutory orders passed by the Member National Industrial Relations Commission were amenable to the appellate jurisdiction of Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission

Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission was not available for want of quorum

No one should be rendered remediless when a remedy had been provided by the legislature

High Court had constitutional jurisdiction to rescue an aggrieved party for redressal of his grievance during such interregnum

Employees did not fall within the definition of "workman"

Impugned order was not sustainable, in circumstances

Operation of impugned order passed by the Member National Industrial Relations Commission was suspended till availability of Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Grievance petition was dismissed on the ground of jurisdiction but High Court remanded the case for decision afresh after recording the evidence of the parties

Validity

Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council or the Legislative Assembly could legislate for the establishment of Administrative Courts or Tribunals with regard to the terms and conditions of the persons who were or had been in the service of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Employees of "Industrial Development Bank" were not holding the civil posts in connection with the affairs of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir

Question of availing the remedy of appeal by the said employees before Service Tribunal would not arise in circumstances

Neither Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly nor the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council was empowered to legislate for determination of terms and conditions of such persons

Employees had statutory right to raise any point before the proper forum and same should be attended and resolved according to law

Employees of "Industrial Development Bank" were not civil servants and remedy of appeal was not available to them before the Service Tribunal

Appeal was disposed of in circumstances.

Employers, through advertisement, invited applications for the posts of different categories on the basis of "son quota" of the company's employees

Appointments were made on contract basis for a period of one year

Appointees were to furnish affidavit to the effect that none of his brother/sister was working in the employer company, and in case of incorrect undertaking, their appointments were liable to termination

Appointees having failed to furnish the requisite affidavit, their appointments were cancelled

Labour Court, on grievance petitions, set aside the orders of cancellation of appointments and restored the same

Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal of employers

Validity

Held, affidavits of the appointees were very much available, wherein it was mentioned that their brothers were appointed in different period, much prior to the appointment of respondents/appointees purely on the basis of merit instead of "son quota"

Said fact was also nowhere denied by the petitioners/employers

Petitioners/employers had failed to make out a case for interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction

Courts below, after properly appreciating the evidence available on record, had rightly declared the order of cancellation of appointments as null and void

Constitutional petitions, having no merit were dismissed.

Employers, on date of hearing having absented from the court, were proceeded ex parte and then after recording evidence, grievance petition of the workmen was accepted

Employer being aggrieved by said order made a petition before Presiding Officer for setting aside ex parte order, which was dismissed

Validity

Law Officer of the employer had contended that absence was not deliberate, but was due to ill health of the representative of the employers

Application for setting aside ex parte proceedings and order was filed by the employers after 7-1/2 months of passing of ex parte judgment, whereas period of 30 days was available for filing of said application under Art. 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908

Question of limitation could not be considered a "technicality" simpliciter, as it had got its own significance and would have substantial bearing on merits of the case

Law of limitation was required to be followed strictly

Employers were required to explain the delay of each day in filing of petition, but no plausible explanation was given

Ill health of representative was alleged for non-appearance before the court, but no proof was produced in that respect

Trial Court had rightly dismissed the petition

Impugned judgment of the Trial Court, being in accordance with law, same was maintained and appeal being without merits was dismissed, in circumstances.

Authorities were bound to serve the charge sheet and show-cause notice upon the employee and hold regular inquiry within time

Employee had been demoted on time barred charge sheet in the present case

Impugned action of authorities was illegal and without jurisdiction, in circumstances

Petitioner being a permanent workman could not be demoted from service

Authorities were bound to examine the Zonal Accountant during inquiry proceedings when it was the version of petitioner that he accepted the requisite receipts on his direction

Employee being subordinate of authorities could not produce evidence against the high-ups from the same establishment

Petitioner was performing his duties temporarily under the Zonal Accountant who had been exonerated during inquiry proceedings

Employee had been discriminated by the authorities

Impugned order for demotion of employee was set aside being illegal

Authorities were directed to restore the original position of employee as he was before demotion to lower post, with back benefits

Grievance petition was allowed accordingly.

Application for summoning of witness were dismissed on the ground that it did not mention any specific purpose or fact to be proved through the said witness

Validity

Court was justified to inquire as to the relevance of the witness for proving any material fact, which had not been disclosed in the application for summoning of witness

Relevant documents had already been made part of the record of the case

Petitioner had not been able to show the relevancy of the witness in context with alleged documents

Orders passed by the Courts below did not suffer from any error of law

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Application for summoning of witness was dismissed on the ground that it did not mention any specific purpose or fact to be proved through the said witness

Validity

Court was justified to inquire as t o the relevance of the witness for proving any material fact, which had not been disclosed in the application for summoning of witness

Relevant documents had already been made part of the record of the case

Petitioner had not been able to show the relevancy of the witness in context with alleged documents

Orders passed by the Courts below did not suffer from any error of law

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Labour Court after recording evidence disposed of grievance petition with the direction to the employee to move fresh petition before the new management and Management and Labour Appellate Tribunal were directed to consider the case of petitioner on humanitarian basis

Labour Appellate Tribunal remanded the case with the direction to the Labour Court to pass fresh order but employee was reinstated till final decision of grievance petition

Validity

Labour Court made reference to the evidence but decision was not made on complete consideration of evidence

Labour Court was to decide the grievance petition on merits

If employee had succeeded in proving his termination to be illegal then he should have been reinstated and if explanation of management was just and fair then grievance petition could be declined

Case was not to be remanded by the Tribunal simply for decision afresh

Labour Appellate Tribunal was itself competent to decide the appeal on merits

Remand of the case was only to be made if judgments of the forums below were reversed

Frequent remand of the cases was disapproved

High Court observed that parties in the present case had led evidence

If any omission in the order of Labour Court to consider entire evidence was on record then Labour Appellate Tribunal should have examined the same

Labour Appellate Tribunal should have decided the appeal on merits rather than sending it to the Labour Court

Labour Appellate Court had committed error while remanding the case to the Labour Court

Even Labour Appellate Tribunal was not denuded of its jurisdiction to record evidence if same was required for proper administration of justice or effective decision of the case

Remand of case was not permissible for decision afresh by the forum below in presence of evidence on record sufficient to decide the controversy

Even Labour Appellate Tribunal had granted the claim of reinstatement made by the employee in the present case without declaring the termination to be illegal

Order for reinstatement could not be passed without final determination either by the Labour Court or Labour Appellate Tribunal

Labour Appellate Tribunal had acted without lawful authority and in an illegal manner in issuing a self-contradictory order

Impugned order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal was set aside

Appeal was to be deemed to be pending before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, to be decided after considering evidence on record

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Application for summoning of witness was dismissed on the ground that it did not mention any specific purpose or fact to be proved through the said witness

Validity

Court was justified to inquire as to the relevance of the witness for proving any material fact, which had not been disclosed in the application for summoning of witness

Relevant documents had already been made part of the record of the case

Petitioner had not been able to show the relevancy of the witness in context with alleged documents

Orders passed by the Courts below did not suffer from any error of law

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Employee of Lahore Development Authority proceeded against under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006

Dismissal from service

Grievance petition

Maintainability

Departmental appeal by the employee was dismissed

Employee thereafter filed grievance petition before Labour Court

Establishment moved application for rejection of the grievance petition but same was dismissed

Validity

Provisions of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were not applicable to industrial and commercial establishments carried on by or under the authority of Federal or any Provincial Government wherein the terms and conditions of service of the employees were governed under statutory rules of service or statutory law/rules were applicable with regard to their conduct and discipline

Employee, in the present case, was proceeded against under Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 which, being statutory dispensation jurisdiction of the Labour Court to take care of the order either passed by the competent authority or the appellate authority, was not attracted

Grievance petition by the employee before Labour Court was not sustainable

Impugned orders passed by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal were set aside

Application for rejection of grievance petition was accepted and proceedings before the said forum were quashed

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.

Employee applied for old-age pension but his claim was refused by Regional Claim Committee holding that he had not completed the mandatory length of service

Grievance petition filed by the employee was accepted by the Labour Court

Validity

Remedy of appeal against the decision of Institution was available to the employee but he filed grievance petition before Labour Court which decided the matter

Act of employee by passing the statutory remedy available to him was not justified and he could not be rescued by High Court

Where an alternate remedy was available to any person then he could not be allowed to supersede or skip the same

Nobody could be allowed to bypass any provision of law and procedure laid down for a particular purpose

Labour Court could deal with the adjudication and determination of industrial dispute, unfair labour practices and matters with regard to implementation or violation of a settlement referred to it by the Government

Employee worked for textile mill and present dispute was not an industrial dispute

Question of payment of pension did not fall within the definition of unfair labour practice

Every individual had right to be dealt with in accordance with law and no person was liable to do which the law did not require him to do

Impugned action was initiated and taken to its logical conclusion under a misconception of law and under a wrong law and it had vitiated entire proceedings including final order

Where procedure had been provided for doing a thing in a particular manner then same should be done in that manner alone and not in any other way or it should not be done at all otherwise it would be considered non-compliance of the legislative intent and would be deemed illegal

Labour Court had not acted in accordance with law by assuming the jurisdiction of which it was not bestowed

Labour Court was not empowered to take cognizance of the matter and its order was illegal and void

Entire exercise by the Labour Court while passing the impugned orders was illegal and without jurisdiction

Where order was passed without jurisdiction, High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction could interfere into the matter

Impugned orders had been passed by the Labour Court without jurisdiction therefore, there was no need to avail remedy of appeal by the department

Impugned order passed by the Courts below were set aside

Employee would be free to approach the competent forum of law for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Employees were terminated from service against which grievance petition was accepted and they were reinstated with back benefits

Contention of respondent was that employees were not permanent workers and they could not be reinstated into service with back benefits

Validity

Duties assigned to the employees were of manual nature which did fall within the ambit of a worker and workman

Concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below could not be interfered with unless some question of law or erroneous appreciation of evidence was made out

Courts below had dilated upon the issues in an elaborative manner and recorded its findings by appreciating the evidence of the parties

High Court in constitutional jurisdiction could not interfere in concurrent findings recorded by the competent fora below

No illegality, infirmity or material irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments passed by the Courts below

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

High Court in constitutional jurisdiction could not interfere in the concurrent findings of facts rendered by the Courts below unless there was illegality, infirmity or material irregularity in the impugned judgments

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Grievance petition moved by the employee was allowed and he was awarded compensation to the extent of two years' salary in lieu of his reinstatement in addition to his other legal dues

Contention of Establishment was that petitioner was employed in a managerial and administrative capacity and he was excluded from the definition of "workman"

Validity

Employee had denied the allegations of Establishment and nothing was on record to rebut the contentions of employee

Labour Court had dilated upon the issues in an elaborative manner and recorded findings in affirmative by appreciating the material available on record

No ground existed for re-evaluation of the evidence produced by the employee

High Court in constitutional jurisdiction could not interfere in the concurrent findings of facts recorded by the competent forum as no illegality, infirmity or irregularity had been pointed out in the impugned judgments

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Department moved an application for rejection of said petition which was dismissed by the Labour Court but Labour Appellate Court Tribunal accepted the said application and rejected the grievance petition being not maintainable

Validity

Employee started efforts for change in his date of birth few months prior to his retirement which was an afterthought

Matter with regard to correction in the date of birth of an employee was part of terms and conditions of service and could not be resorted to through a civil suit

Civil servant could not seek alteration in his date of birth at the verge of his retirement or otherwise through a suit

Date of birth once recorded in the service book could not be altered unless an application for the same was moved by the employee within a period of two years from the date his service book was opened

Employee could not explain inordinate delay in seeking correction in his date of birth at the time of joining the service

Constitutional petition was not maintainable which was dismissed in circumstances.