ABDUL RASHID MALIK and others vs GENERAL MANAGER, PAKISTAN RAILWAYS

' The grievance voiced in this writ petition relates to promotion of Booking Clerks, Parcel Clerks and Goods Clerks as Sub-Ticket Examiners against the quota of twenty per cent reserved for commercial staff.

2. It is not necessary to go into the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.

Suffice it to say that the Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, vide decision dated 10-11-1991 took the view that the petitioners do not fall within the definition of workmen and accordingly dismissed their grievance petition. On appeal, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, vide its judgment dated 23-12-1991 failed to record any specific finding as to whether or not the petitioners were workmen, for lack of sufficient material on record, but nevertheless gave finding on merits of the case and dismissed the appeal.

3. Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance), confers a right on a workman to bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law or any award or settlement for the time being in force to the notice of his employer in writing, either himself or through his shop steward or collective bargaining agent, within three months of the day on which cause of such grievance arises. When such a grievance petition is filed, the Labour Court is under a statutory obligation to go into all the facts of the case and pass such order as it may deem just and proper in the circumstances of the case for adjudicating and determining the grievance brought by a workman before it.

4. Clearly the relationship of workman and employer is a condition precedent for vesting jurisdiction in the Labour Court under section 25-A of the Ordinance to entertain an application from a worker for adjudication of his grievance in terms of the said section. It is a general rule that no Tribunal of limited jurisdiction can give jurisdiction unto itself, in the absence of the state of facts on the existence whereof its jurisdiction is dependent. Refer Abdul Qayyum and another v. Niaz Muhammad and another 1992 SCM R 613. In the instant case the. Exercise of jurisdiction by the Labour Court under section 25-A or the Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 37 was contingent upon the applicant moving a grievance petition being a workman. In the absence of any finding by the Labour Appellate Tribunal whether or not the petitioners herein were workmen, it had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits. On this short ground alone the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

5. In view of the above, the impugned order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, dated 23-12- 1991 is hereby declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The result is that the case is remitted to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, for deciding the appeal afresh after giving a specific finding as to whether or not the petitioners herein are workmen within the meaning of the relevant laws. If he comes to the conclusion that the petitioners are workers after providing the parties an opportunity of being heard, only then he will examine the merits of the case and not otherwise. The parties will be permitted to adduce fresh evidence on this question, if so desired. They shall also be entitled to raise whatever pleas available to them under the law.

' To the extent indicated above, the writ petition is accepted with no order as to costs.