INTERNATIONAL PRESS THROUGH ITS MANAGER vs PRESIDING OFFICER, JUNIOR
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the High Court, which had upheld the reinstatement of an employee by the Junior Labour Court. The petitioner, an employer, terminated the respondent's services, claiming redundancy due to technological conversion of their printing press and asserting that the establishment employed fewer than twenty workers, thus excluding the respondent from invoking the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Labour Court found the establishment employed over twenty workers and that the termination was motivated by the respondent's trade union activities. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner raised a new legal contention: that the respondent failed to serve a grievance notice as mandated by Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which constitutes a condition precedent to invoking the court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the absence of such notice bars the jurisdiction of the Junior Labour Court, while ordering the continued employment of the respondent and payment of costs by the petitioner.
- Is the service of a grievance notice under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, a condition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of a Junior Labour Court?
- Does the failure to provide a grievance notice to an employer bar an employee from seeking redress under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
- Standing Order 13, West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968
- Factories Act 1934
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD Gut, J.-The petitioner-firm is engaged in printing business and is also registered under the Factories Act, 1934. Respondent No, 3 was employed by the petitioner on 25-12-1970 as plate saz. However, by letter dated 31-10-1973, he was declared surplus and his service was terminated w. e. f. 1-11-73. He filed an application under section 25-A of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Junior Labour Court No, IV, Karachi, complaining that the order terminating his service was mala fide and in violation to Standing Order 13 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 because he was office- bearer of the Trade Union and his service has been terminated on that account. The petitioner's defence however, was that it had converted Litho-Printing Press to Off-set Printing Press which had rendered respondent No, 3 surplus to the business requirement of the petitioner and finally that the total number of its employees was 18 and therefore, respondent No, 3 could not invoke the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. On hearing the parties' evidence, the Junior Labour Court found, that the number of employees working in the petitioner's establishment were well over twenty, .And that the respondent's service was terminated, because of his Trade Union activity, and therefore, directed re-instatement of respondent No, 3 with full back-benefits. The petitioner's appeal before the Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi having been dismissed on 19-3-1974, he filed writ ,petition No, 235 of 1974, which too was dismissed vide order dated 13-9-1974, against which the petitioner now seeks leave to appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No, 3 did not give any notice informing the petitioner of his grievance as required by section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which was a condition precedent for invoking the jurisdiction of the Junior Labour Court. In support of this argument, learned counsel relied on Nasim Silk ,Industry v. Fifth Sind Labour Court (1). The matter needs consideration.
3. ' Accordingly, we grant leave, subject however, to the condition that the service of respondent No, 3, who has already been re-instated shall not be terminated during the pendency of the appeal and that the petitioner shall pay the respondent's costs irrespective of the result in the appeal.
4. ' Security Rs, 1,000.
(1) PLJ 1974 Kar. 80