2018 PLCN 23

NAWAB ZAD GUL Versus PAKISTAN DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY, KARACHI

Citation2018 PLCN 23

CourtSindh Labour Appellate Tribunal

Judge(s)Justice (R) Ali Muhammad Baloch, Member NAWAB ZAD GUL

DECISION

1. JUSTICE (R) ALI MUHAMMAD BALOCH, MEMBER.---- This appeal under section 54(3) of Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act, 2010, is directed against the order of the learned Labour Court No.1 dated 30.03.2012, dismissing the application of the appellant bearing No.95/2011 filed under section 41, as being not maintainable before it.

2. Written arguments were filed on behalf of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents, after filing of the comments/objections on appeal, did not file his written arguments. Written arguments of the appellant and the comments have been perused as also the record and proceedings of the learned Labour Court.

3. I have carefully perused the impugned order, which shows that in case of wrongful dismissal of an employee of the respondent --- authority, the remedy for the appellant to claim damages and not reinstatement, since the relationship between him and the respondent authority is that of "MASTER" and "SERVANT" and that the authority did not have the backing of statutory rules. The view of the learned Labour Court finds support of the PLD 2010 SC 676. I am convinced with the above observations of the learned Labour Court. Section 8(b)(5), Chapter-III of Service Rules for employees of Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority clearly shows that if an employee, who absents himself without leave or over stays leaves, he shall be served with three notices, each after ten days to rejoin duty and in case of his failure to report for duty, his services will be dispensed with under misconduct. Under Articles 15 and 16 of the President's Order No.7/1980, the respondent -- authority has been established only for welfare of the employees/officials of armed forces. It did not run any business, commercial, trade, process of manufacturing and producing goods, as such, does not fall within the meaning and scope of Industrial Relations Act, 2008 as also under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The respondent authority is not an industry, as defined under section 14 of Industrial Relations Act, 2008. The appellant is a public servant, as defined under Article 16 of Order 7/1980.

4. In view of the foregoing discussions, appeal has no merit and it is dismissed accordingly.

5. HBT/9/SLT Appeal dismissed.