Present: Md. Nurul Islam Khan, Chairman, S. A. Haleem and M. Karim, Members KALA MIA Versus THE MANAGER, MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT

ORDER

MD. NURUL ISLAM KHAN (CHAIRMAN).‑ This is an application under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for re‑instatement of the petitioner to his former post with all back wages and other legal dues.

Heard the parties. Members are present.

The case of the petitioner is that during the pendency of Complaint Case No. 170 of 1969 which he filed in the 3rd Labour Court, the opposite party terminated his services by an order dated 13‑6‑1969. The Complaint Case No. 170 of 1969 was filed on 23‑4‑1969 and an ex parte order was passed on 10‑1‑1970. Thereafter Miscellaneous Case being No. 2 of 1970 is pending in this Court till to‑date. In view of this the first party prays for re‑instatement as stated above.

The second party has submitted written statement wherein it has been stated, inter alia, that the application is not maintainable and that it was time--barred, barred by estoppel, waiver and acquiescence and yes judicata. The second party has piled up many allegations for which the applicant was suspended.

Point for determination is whether the case is maintainable.

FINDINGS

It is admitted that in the present case the first party's services were terminated by an order dated 13‑6‑1969. He was suspended on 10‑3‑1964 and was kept under suspension till 21‑4‑1969 while he filed Case No. 170 of 1969‑ in the 3rd Labour Court. In that case he got an ex parte award against which another Miscellaneous Case has been filed.

Now during the pendency of this proceeding 'his services were terminated on 13‑6‑1969. It is submitted from the other side that section 47 has no applicability in the present case in view of the fact that Case No. 170 of 1969 was not an industrial dispute. According to section 43 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance an industrial dispute could only be raised by a collective bargaining agent. He further submits that the Industrial Relations Ordinance came into existence on 13‑11‑1969 whereas the order of termination was passed 5 months before that on 13‑5‑1969. The Industrial Relations Ordinance in sub section (4) of section 1 has clearly laid down that it came into effect from 13‑11‑1969 and it has no retrospective effect. So on two points the application is not maintainable, because, the Industrial Relations Ordinance was not in existence at the time of passing the order of termination of the services of the first party and that even if we say that the Industrial Relations Ordinance would have been applicable in the present case, we would have had to find that section 47 has no applicability in the present case since Case No. 170 of 1969 did not arise out of any industrial dispute and since the said case arose out of an individual grievance petition under section 25 of the East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act, 1965 Section 25 of the Standing Orders Act has laid down certain procedure for coming. to the Labour Court in such a case. According to section 25 of the Standing Orders Act, 1965 an application for re‑instatement made independently could be time‑barred since he had to come to the Court within 30 days from the dote of receipt of the reply to the grievance petition from the employer. In the present case no such grievance petition has been preferred. However,' it may be said that as another case is pending and an application for re‑instatement would have been for extension of that petition only, we would further find that due to the re‑allocation of jurisdiction the petitioner's case should have been and as a matter of fact has been filed in the First Labour Court. However, on the ground of maintainability we find that this application is not maintainable and hence this application is dismissed on coolest.

Members agree with me on consultation.