PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Lahore and anothers vs PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, LAHORE through Chairman and anothers
This matter arises from petitions for leave to appeal filed by the Province of Punjab against the judgment of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had ordered the reinstatement of private respondents—former work-charged employees such as Chowkidars, gardeners, and helpers in the Irrigation Department—with half back benefits after reversing the dismissal of their grievance petitions by the Labour Court. The core legal questions involve whether work-charged employees of a government department can seek reinstatement through grievance petitions and whether such petitions are maintainable in view of the statutory exclusions under labour laws. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding the maintainability of the grievance petitions under section 1(4)(c) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and the status of work-charged employees require formal examination. The key principle laid down is that questions concerning the applicability of labour statutes to government work-charged personnel warrant a full appellate review by the apex court.
- Are grievance petitions filed by work-charged employees of a government department maintainable under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does section 1(4)(c) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 bar the claims of work-charged government employees?
- Can work-charged employees ordered to be reinstated by a Labour Appellate Tribunal be granted back benefits?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
- Section 1(4)(c), West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968
ORDER
' SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, C.J.--- We propose to dispose of above mentioned 11 petitions for leave to appeal by a consolidated order as the questions of law and facts involved in these cases are identical and they also arise from the same impugned judgment.
2. Private respondents in the above petitions were working as Chowkidars, gardners, helpers etc. In the Irrigation Department for a number of year. Their services were terminated by the department describing them as work-charged employees. The respondents filed grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (I.R.O.) before the Labour Court but their grievance petitions were dismissed on 12-1-1994 with the observation that the grievance petitions were not maintainable in law. However, on appeal the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab reversed the judgment of the Labour Court, by judgment, dated 18-7-1996 and the private respondents have been directed to be reinstated in service with half back benefits. The Province of Punjab is now seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of learned Labour Appellate Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners in seeking leave to appeal, inter alia, contended that private respondents being work-charged employees, could not be ordered to be reinstated in service. It is also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the grievance petitions filed by the petitioners were not maintainable in view of section I (4)(c) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners require examination and we, accordingly, grant leave to appeal to consider the same.