1993 PLC(CS) 560

MUHAMMAD INAYAT Versus PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI

Share on WhatsApp ⭐ Prefer in Google

Citation1993 PLC(CS) 560

CourtSindh Labour Appellate Tribunal

Case No.Appeals Nos. KAR‑469 and KAR‑479 of 1991

Date1993-03-15

Judge(s)Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal

ResultAppeals dismissed

DECISION

These two appeals call in question the‑order of the IVth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi, whereby the grievance application filed by the petitioners for reinstatement in service were dismissed. The circumstances in which these arose, in short, are as follows.

2. Both the petitioners were ‑appointed by the respondents as Junior Officers in 1989 and 1990 respectively and their services came to be terminated with immediate effect on 11‑11‑1990 as the same were no more required. However they were advised to collect their pay as per rules, in lieu of notice. The petitioners had sent grievance notices and receiving no reply had filed grievance applications before the Labour Court.

3. In the Written Replies it was stressed that the Steel Mill was being run under the authority of the Federal Government with its own statutory Rules of Service, Conduct and Discipline, and therefore the application was not maintainable. The rest of the allegations came to be denied.

4. The petitioners were their own witnesses and there was the evidence of Gul Muhammad Awan, Assistant Manager (A&P) led on behalf of the respondents in both the matters.

5. The Labour Court coming to the conclusion that the petitioners were not workmen and their termination was in accordance with the terms of the appointment, dismissed their grievance applications.

6. Mr. Gohar Iqbal, learned counsel for the appellants maintained that the appellants had become permanent workmen as they had remained in the employment of the respondents, much beyond three months. It was argued that the reason for their termination is far from explicit and that by itself would nullify the order. Some citations were also referred to in support of his contentions. However, it was argued on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners were not workmen and otherwise too the Pakistan Steel Mill was a `Corporation' with its own Statutory Rules and the employees would be governed not by the Standing Orders Ordinance but by its own Rules and Regulations which had been duly gazetted. But before proceeding any further, it will be in the fitness of things to produce the letters of appointments issued to, the appellants, which are in identical terms:‑‑

"With reference to your abovementioned application and subsequent interview with us we have the pleasure to offer you the post of Junior Officer (PSB‑1(b) on the following terms and conditions:‑‑

(i) COMMENCEMENT OF APPOINTMENT:

(a) Your appointment will commence from the date of your report for duty in this Corporation.

(b) Your appointment will be subject to your being found medically fit to the satisfaction of the Corporation and your antecedents being verified and found to the satisfactory by it.

(ii) PROBATION:

You will be on probation for a period of one year or until such time as the Corporation in its sole discretion, confirms in writing. that you have successfully completed your probation.

(iii) LIABILITY OF SERVICE:

(a) ?????? ...................................

(b) ?????? ...................................

(iv) SALARY:

You will be allowed as basic pay of Rs.1,560 per month in the scale of Rs.1,560‑‑130‑‑4,160 plus usual allowances admissible under the rules.

(v) TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT:

(1) During the period of probation your appointment will be terminable‑‑

(a) by 15 days' notice on either side without any reason being assigned.

(b) by the Corporation without any previous notice and without observing any formality if you should be guilty of any insubordination, in?temperance or misconduct of which the Corporation will be the sole judge.

(2) After your confirmation in service your appointment will be terminable at any time‑‑

(a) without any notice if the Corporation is satisfied from report of a Medical Officer appointed by it that you have become or are likely for a considerable period, to remain unfit by reason of ill‑health or physical disability, for the proper and efficient discharge of the duties entrusted to you by the Corporation from time to time;

(b) by the Corporation without previous notice and without observing any formality if you should be guilty of any insubordination, intemperance or misconduct of which the Corporation will be the sole judge;

(c) by three months' notice on either side without assigning any reason or by payment of three months' salary in lieu thereof or, proportionate payment for the un-expired period of notice.

(vi) LEAVE:

??????????? ...................................................................... ...................................

(vii) MEDICAL FACILITIES:

...................................................................... ...................................

(viii) PROVIDENT FUND:

...................................................................... ...................................

(ix) GRATUITY:

...................................................................... ...................................

(x) OTHER RULES AND REGULATIONS:

(a) In all respects your services will be governed by the Rules and Regulations of the Corporation in force from time to time.

(b) You will not divulge either directly or indirectly to any person or body any knowledge or information which you may acquire concerning the affairs, property, enterprise and undertaking of the Corporation including the business and trade matters arid secrets.

(c) You shall submit yourself to the order of the Corporation and of the officers and authorities under whom you may from time to time be the placed by the Corporation and shall all times obey the Corporation regarding your duties and conduct.

(d) You are required to produce original testimonials, educational and domicile certificates.

Please acknowledge this letter of offer by way of formal acceptance within a week of its receipts and report for duty to the Corporation as early as possible but not later than 20‑4‑1990.

Yours faithfully, for PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION LIMITED.

(Sd.)

(S. QAMAR ABBAS),

Actg. General Manager (A&P),"

7. Mr. Abdus Samad, learned counsel for the respondents maintained that as the Corporation had its own Rules and Regulations the Constitutional and Statutory safeguards will not be available to the appellants. The relationship between the parties will be as of Master and Servant. He has cited a judgment of Division Bench of the Sindh High Court in Constitution Petition No. D‑262 of 1991, disposed of on 28‑5‑1991 namely "Ali Ahmad Jatoi v. Federation of Pakistan and others. The dispute pertained to an en bloc termination of the services of the Junior Officers of the Steel Mill by similar orders. It was clearly laid down therein that the only remedies available to the employees would be to approach the Civil Court for damages and compensation and there was no question of reinstatement, as their removal was in accordance with the terms of their appointments. Reference was made to a number of authorities in which the same view had been taken.

8. In view of this clear pronouncement on the subject, the contention of Mr. Abdus Samad must prevail and it is not necessary to examine the other aspects. I will, therefore, uphold the order and dismiss both the appeals.

H.B.T./2183/Lb.S ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeals dismissed.