COTTON TRADING CORPORATION (PAKISTAN), FAISALABAD vs Rana SHABBIR

This petition is by the employer aggrieved by a judgment of the Appellate Tribunal holding the respondent to be a workman and termination of his service to be a retrenchment and the principle of retrenchment having not been followed.

2. The employer objects to the adjudication primarily on two main grounds. Firstly, it is stated on the basis of the decision in Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore that the Appellate Tribunal had no jurisdiction but the Labour Court had jurisdiction under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance on the strength of clause (3) of Standing Order No,

12. Secondly it is stated that the respondent could not be taken to be a workman as he was the highest officer in the unit where he was employed.

3. So far as the first legal point is concerned, undoubtedly it has been so held that on the strength of clause (3) of Standing Order No, 12, section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance stands incorporated in the Standing Orders Ordinance but section 37 which provides for an appeal against an order under that section. Hence the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal and the right of the aggrieved party to file an appeal has been held to be non-existent. This finding of law in so far as it goes, is not in issues. The question here is not what is the effect and extent of incorporation but the question is where two reliefs are equally available one under section 25-A of the I.R.O. And one under Standing Order 12, clause (3) as after incorporation and the one happens to be more beneficial than the other then with whom would be the choice lie. It is the accepted principle that the remedies which are more beneficial in accordance with the sense of fairness and equity have to be preferred over those which give truncated relief to the aggrieved person. By all means, a law1 which affords a right of appeal to the aggrieved party against the first decision is a more beneficial provision than the one which completely shuts or such appeal. Therefore, on the strength of I.R.O.

And the definition of workman therein the respondent could avail of the remedy of appeal.

4. As regards the finding whether the respondent was a workman or not, the standard adopted for determining this question is correct. The Appellate Tribunal has gone not by the designation whether he is the highest or the lowest officer but by the nature of the duties that the functionary was required to perform. The only duty which according to the petitioner himself he was required to perform was one of tabulation of data, a clerical function. Such being the finding of the Appellate Tribunal the respondent was rightly held to be a workman. There is nothing else which can be forcefully made out at this stage and the petition is dismissed in limine. PLD 1979 Lah. 415