Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD SAFDAR KHAN VS Respondent: MANAGER, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., LAHORE
1993 P L C 922
1993 P L C 922
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
MUHAMMAD SAFDAR KHAN
Versus
MANAGER, MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD., LAHORE
Appeal No.LHR‑633 of 1986, decided on 19th November, 1986.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(xxviii), 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑‑Bank employee's case‑‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service‑‑‑High Court holding that Bank employee no longer in service ceased to be covered by definition of "workman" vide S.2(xxviii)‑‑‑Labour Court relying upon ruling of High Court returning petition for want of jurisdiction‑‑‑Judgment of High Court challenged in appeal before Supreme Court and matter pending adjudication by Supreme Court‑‑‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, was not justified in passing unconditional order of returning petition‑‑‑Petitioner was entitled to get his petition decided on merits from Labour Court in case Supreme Court held the workmen removed from service and having filed grievance petition were covered by definition of workmen.
1985 PLC 1053 ref.
H.R. Haider for Appellant.
Mian Nisar Saleem for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 17th November, 1986.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 28‑9‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the grievance petition has been directed to be returned to the appellant for want of jurisdiction.
2. The learned lower Court relied upon 1985 PLC 1053 for holding that it had no jurisdiction. No doubt, the High Court has held in the said ruling that the Bank employees who are no longer in service ceased to remain covered by the definition of workman gives in section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but the said ruling has not gained finality as it stands challenged in various appeals before the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, an unconditional order of return of the grievance petition is not justified.
3. As a result, the appeal is partly accepted and maintaining the order of return of the grievance petition, it is directed that if the Supreme Court holds that the persons who were removed from service and they had brought the grievance petitions are covered by the definition of workman, the appellant will be entitled to get his grievance petition decided on merits from the learned lower Court.
A.E./219/Lb.P Appeal partly accepted.