MUHAMMAD SALEEM Versus KARACHI PORT TRUST, KARACHI

1. ABDUL QADEER CHAUDHRY, J. ‑‑The petitioner was employed as a Carpenter in the respondent No. 3's Organization. The petitioner had proceeded on leave for three months which was duly sanctioned by respondent No. 3. Before the expiry of leave the petitioner sent an application to the respondent No. 3 for extension of leave on the ground of his illness. The said application was supported by the Medical Certificate. The petitioner resumed his duty alongwith fitness certificate but he was informed that his service was terminated. The petitioner submitted an appeal to the respondents against the order of termination, which was dismissed. After grievance notice, the petitioner filed an application for re instatement in service. The respondents opposed the application on the ground that on the expiry of leave he submitted another application for extension of leave but since the medical certificate was not issued and countersigned by Civil Surgeon, the medical certificate produced by the petitioner‑was not in accordance with the rules and therefore his service was terminated according to K.P.T. Rules. After serving a grievance notice the petitioner submitted an application under section 25‑A of I.R.O. 1969 to respondent No. 2. The said application was dismissed on the ground that the grievance application of the petitioner was not maintainable under the provision of clause (3) of Standing Order 12. It was further observed that the petitioner cannot file a grievance application before a Labour Court under Section 25‑A, I.R.O. Thereafter the petitioner filed an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal (respondent No.l) but the same: was also dismissed on the same ground. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a case of Trustees of the Port of Karachi v. Abdul Ghani reported in 1983 SCMR 769 wherein it has been observed that there is no provision in they K.P.T. Act, 1886 which can be read to exclude the applicability of the I.R.O. 1969. It is further observed that there is no apparent bar against the availability o Section 25‑A of the Ordinance and ought to be said that the two remedies are available side by side, as prima facie the I.R.O. 1969 by its scope over‑reaches an establishment which satisfies the definitions of employer, worker or workman and the establishment. The authority cited by the learned counsel supports the contention of the petitioner. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner before the Labour Court was maintainable. The petition is accepted and the case is remanded to the Labour Court for decision on merits in accordance with law.

2. S.O./M‑453/K Case remanded.