KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL

DECISION

This is a suo motu revision application under section 38(3‑a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, filed by the applicants establishment against, an impugned order, dated 30‑7‑1986 passed by the Sind Labour Court No.V Karachi, who had overruled the legal objection raised by the applicants establishment on the question of maintainability of an application under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, filed by the respondent, namely, Rukanuddin Shaikh, in view of a Notification, published in the official Gazette, dated 14‑3‑1985.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent was employed with the applicants establishment as Customers Services Agent and posted at Karachi Airport as Shift Incharge. On 29th/30th October, 1984 when the respondent was on duty as Shift Incharge of cargo service at Karachi Airport, it was alleged that one container No.0975 was not tagged and shown as empty, but it was found to have contained cargo. The said container was off loaded‑ and subsequently found by the Customs Authorities containing 12 wooden crates having narcotics of about 500 kilograms. Therefore, on 25‑11‑1984 he was issued a show‑cause notice and as the reply of the respondent was not found satisfactory, an enquiry officer was appointed to hold domestic enquiry, vide letter, dated 10‑12‑1984, who subsequently found him guilty of the misconduct, so the services of the respondent were dismissed on 12‑2‑1985. Thereafter the respondent submitted his grievance petition.

3. The applicant establishment resisted the petition challenging the maintainability of the grievance petition on the ground that the Sind Government has exempted the applicants establishment from the operation of the provision of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, vide Notification No. SO (L‑II) S‑123/81, dated 26th of April 1984. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court after hearing the parties on this sole legal objection has passed the impugned order, dated 30‑7‑1986. Hence, this suo motu revision.

4. I have heard Mr. Talmiz, the learned Advocate for the applicants establishment and Mr.M.L. Shahani, the learned Advocate on behalf of 'the respondent and have also carefully examined the legal aspects of the case. It was contended by Mr.Talmiz S. Burney, the learned Advocate for the applicants establishment that the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition of the respondent under section 25‑A, I.R.0. 1969 in view of the Notification, dated 18‑10‑1984 published in the Sind Government Gazette of March 14, 1985, exempting the applicants from the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 in continuation of the previous Notification, dated 26‑4‑1984, and specifically given effect the said Notification from 26‑10‑1984, therefore, it has also erred in holding that the said Notification will be effective from the date of publication in the Government Gazette and not from the date given in the Notification itself. He further pleaded that the publication of a Notification only gives its enforcibility or an operative date but its publication has no effect on its validity and that the effectiveness of a Notification does not depend upon its publication in the Gazette so much so merely the publication of the Notification in the Government Gazette does not take away its validity from the date it has been made effective by the Notification itself. It was further contended that in any case the operativeness or effectiveness of a Notification does not depend upon its publication in view of section 5 of the General Clauses Act and as such it was submitted that the Notification, operates from the date mentioned as date with effect from which it is made effective and not from the date of publication in the Gazette and that the Notification is procedural in nature and not penal and as such the said Notification has retrospective effect as contemplated by the general principle of Interpretation of statutes. Mr. Talmiz S.Burney has lastly argued that the learned Labour Court has exercised his jurisdiction illegally with material irregularity and reached to a conclusion which is arbitrary, erroneous and not maintainable. In support of his arguments, Mr.Talmiz S.Burney has referred me to some authorities reported in P L D 1978 Lahore at page 1020, P L D 1983 Karachi at page 480, 1981 C L C at page 1047, (Lahore) P L D 1965 SC at page 681 and principles and Digest of the Law of Evidence Act (4th Edition). In my humble opinion all these authorities are distinguishable to the facts, circumstances and legal aspect of the present case.

5.On the other hand, Mr.M.L.Shahani, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent has submitted that if the arguments of Mr.Talmiz S. Burney is appreciated then the words in the official Gazette, used in section 8 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 will have to be either deleted or be construed to have been used in vain. He contended that, some meaning is to be given to the words 'official Gazette'. In support of his contention, he referred to the following relevant provision of section 8 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968.

?8‑ Power to exempt Government may, subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose by notification in the official Gazette, exempt any industrial or commercial establishment from all or any of the provisions of this Ordinance

Mr.Shahani stressed that the Law specifically laid emphasises on the words 'notification in official Gazette'. It is well settled that the words used by legislature are to be given full meaning and redundency cannot be attributed to the legislatures, I would, therefore, hold that Mr. M.L.Shahani, the learned Advocate for the respondent has rightly stated that the words, 'official Gazette' have not been in vain. In support of his pleadings Mr.Shahani has relied upon the authorities, reported in P L D 1978 SC page 190; 1983 PLC 620 and 1983 P.L.C at page 1237. The authorities relied by Mr. M.L. Shahani are very well applicable to the present case as both this Tribunal and the Division Bench of Sind High Court have appreciated the Law correctly that Notification is operative, from the date of its publication in the official Gazette and not from the date of Notification. Taking into consideration the Law laid down by the superior Court and also by my learned predecessor, I would also hold that the said Notification is effective from the date of its publication in Gazette, which is dated 14‑3‑1985 and as the respondent was dismissed from his services on an earlier date i.e. on 12‑2‑1985, therefore the grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R.0. 1969 of the respondent before the learned Labour Court, is maintainable so I would also maintain the impugned order, dated 30‑7‑1986.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would maintain the impugned order and would dismiss this suo motu revision application and would also vacate the stay order, dated 9‑10‑1986 given by this Tribunal. The concerned learned Labour Court is directed to decide the grievance petition of the respondent, on the merit, within sixty (60) days of this decision.

A.E./1066/Lb.S ??????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????? Revision dismissed.