Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI vs ALEEM HAIDER And Another
This appeal concerns the maintainability of a grievance petition filed by a bank employee under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The core legal question was whether a single branch of a bank, which has multiple branches nationwide, constitutes an 'establishment' or 'unit' for the purposes of the Industrial Relations Ordinance and the Standing Orders Ordinance, specifically regarding the threshold requirement of employing 20 or more workers. The Labour Appellate Tribunal, following precedent, held that a bank's individual branch must be treated as a separate unit rather than part of a single national entity. Consequently, the burden of proof lies upon the worker to demonstrate that their specific unit employs 20 or more workers to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. As the respondent failed to prove this threshold, and given the objection that the bank unit was governed by the Shops Act, the Tribunal ruled that the grievance petition was not maintainable. The appeal was allowed, and the grievance petition was dismissed.
- Does a single branch of a bank with multiple nationwide branches constitute a separate unit for the application of the Standing Orders Ordinance?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that a unit employs 20 or more workers to invoke the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Is a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance maintainable if the worker fails to prove the establishment meets the statutory worker threshold?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
DECISION Mr. Iftikharul Haque has remained absent. Similar case of Allied Bank v. Syed Ali Shah being Appeal No.KAR-83 of 1996 was decided on 7-4-1996 on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court that the company may have more than one establishments or units and each unit should have 20 or more workers to attract the application of the Standing Orders or the I.R.O. In this case the Allied Bank has several branches in the country and all such branches cannot be considered to be one unit. Each branch is to be taken separately for the purpose of the application of Standing Orders.
The p burden lies on the worker to show that the unit employs 20 or more workers and the I.R.O. And the Standing Orders Ordinance have therefore application to his case. Since this has not been proved and objection has been raised that the unit of the Bank is governed by the Shops Act the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. Was not maintainable before the Labour Court. The present appeal is also therefore disposed of as the other appeal is being not maintainable. The back benefits deposited by the bank may be refunded to the appellant.
2. In the result the appeal is allowed.