SAJJANI ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS vs AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN AND OTHERS
This matter involves three appeals before the Supreme Court of Pakistan concerning the common question of whether a grievance notice under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is mandatory prior to instituting proceedings in a Labour Court to challenge the termination of service. Factually, no such notice was given in any of the cases. The High Court had previously held that such notice was necessary relying on earlier case law. However, the Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to notice the insertion of subsection (6) into section 25-A on 9 February 1973 by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973, which eliminated the requirement of notice in cases of termination. The Supreme Court held that pursuant to this statutory amendment and prior authoritative construction, an aggrieved worker could directly seek a remedy against employment termination. Consequently, the appeals were allowed.
- Is a grievance notice mandatory under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before instituting proceedings in a Labour Court to challenge the termination of service?
- Did the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973 do away with the requirement of notice for challenging termination of service under section 25-A?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
- Section 25-A(6), Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
- Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act 1973
1. ' MUHAMMAD HALEEM, ACTG. C. J.-In these three appeals the common question for consideration is as to whether notice impugning the, termination of service is mandatory under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before instituting proceedings in a Labour Court for setting it aside. Factually in none of these cases such as notice was given.
2. The High Court relying on the case of Nasim Silk Industries v. Fifth Sind Labour Court and others (1), held that it was necessary and gave the relief. But it seems that the High Court failed to notice that after the judgment in this case subsection (6) was inserted in section 25-A on 9th of February, 1973, by the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973, which did away with the requirement of notice.
3. This subsection was construed by this Court and it was held that the aggrieved worker could seek his remedy against the termination of his employment directly from the Junior Labor Court.
4. Reference in this connection may be made to Iftikhar Elahi v. Butt Engineering Industries (2).
5. ' Accordingly, these appeals succeed and are allowed, but with no order as to costs. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) PLD 1977 Kar. 793 (2) 1982 SCM R 1207 {{FOOT NOTE}}