LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF , Nemo

This petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 calls in question the judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore dated 15‑11‑1983 upholding the order of the Labour Court dated 13th January, 1991.

2. Muhammad Ashraf, respondent No. 1 was working as work‑charged Supervisor in the Lahore Development Authority when his services were terminated by the petitioner. He challenged the termination by filing an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which was accepted by Labour Court on the findings that the petitioner has acted in violation of Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Respondent No. 1 was, therefore, directed to be reinstated into service with back benefits. Aggrieved , the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.

3. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that as neither the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 nor of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 were applicable to the workmen in the employment of the petitioner, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in the matter. This argument has been found to be without ‑ any merits by this Court in the connected matter namely W.P. 2924 of 1986, wherein it has been held that both the laws apply to respondent No. 1.

4. As regards merits, suffice it to say that both the Courts below have found as a fact that respondent No. 1 had become permanent employee of the petitioner and the plea that he was employed as work‑charged Supervisor on temporary basis has been repelled after considering all the aspects of the matter. The Labour Court had found that there has been a violation of Standing Order 12(3). The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal also found that the rule of first come last go has not been adhered to by the petitioner.

As a result of what has been stated above this petition is found to, be without any force and is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

H.B.T./L‑29/L ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.