Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MEHMOOD AHMED TAHIR VS Respondent: PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI
1993 P L C 189
1993 P L C 189
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh]
Present: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal
MEHMOOD AHMED TAHIR
versus
THE PRESIDING OFFICER, IVTH SINDH LABOUR COURT, KARACHI and another
Appeal No. KAR‑170 of 1992, decided on 8th September, 1992.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 1(3)‑‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1908), S.8‑‑‑Termination of service of worker‑‑‑Establishments exempted from the applicability of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Respondent Establishment having been exempted under provisions of S.1(3), Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and Government being empowered to exempt any industry or commercial establishment from all or any of the provisions of the Ordinance for the specified period, matter relating to termination of services of worker, was not open to exception.
Gohar Iqbal for Appellant.
M.L. Shahani for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 8th September, 1992.
DECISION
The circumstances in which this appeal has arisen are as follows:‑
The appellant was working as a clerk with the respondent. On 15‑10‑1991 he was served with a charge‑sheet to the effect that he was generally found to be dishonest in the performance of his duties, and that he had arranged for getting cuts from a garage/workshop at Shahrah‑e‑Faisal, Karachi where the respondent's vehicles were sent for repairs.
2. A reply was submitted but that was not found to be satisfactory. However, no enquiry was ordered and the respondent instead chose to terminate his services forthwith on payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice.
3. The appellant had given his grievance notice and ultimately filed a petition before the Labour Court. The petition was resisted inter alia on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed on that ground alone, at the stage of preliminary hearing.
4. Under section 1(3) of the IRO a number of institutions and 'organisations have been specified to whom exemption has been granted from the applicability of the IRO. In sub‑clause (e) thereof occurs the name of the respondent. Then there is also section 8 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 which empowers the Provincial Government to exempt any Industry or Commercial establishment or class of such establishments from all or of the provisions of the Ordinance by issuing a Notification. That was duly done, and we have got a Notification dated July 15, 1991 that covers the period of the termination of service which is material for the purpose of the present proceedings. However, it is stated that other notifications also have followed later.
5. In this view of the matter the impugned order is not open to any exception. I will therefore dismiss the appeal.
A.A./2090/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.