Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS Respondent: MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR
1988 P L C 507
1988 P L C 507
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
Versus
MUHAMMAD IFTIKHAR and 3 others
Appeals Nos.ED‑38, 39, 40 & 41 of 1:)87‑Punjab, decided on 14th March, 1987.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑. ‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑West ‑ Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.1(4), proviso (l)‑‑Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, R.4‑‑Termination of services‑‑Appellant, a department of Government‑‑Conditions for which Standing Orders Ordinance not applicable stood satisfied‑‑Labour Court not adverting to question whether any right, guaranteed to respondent employees by Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975, had or had not been violated by termination of services of respondents‑‑Case remanded to Labour Court for redecision on basis of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1975.
Shahid Saleem for Appellants.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing: 14th March, 1987.
JUDGMENT
Since all the four appeals captioned above involve common questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2.The facts of the case are that Ghulam Muhammad and Muhammad Bashir were employed as Baildar and Muhammad Iftikhar and Manzoor Hussain as Mate. Their services were terminated by order dated 1‑6‑1986. They challenged the said order in their petitions brought under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In written statement one of the objections was that Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 was not applicable. The learned lower Court has not recorded any definite finding on the point. Since the appellant is a department of the Government and Government Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules are meant for Government, servants, therefore, both the conditions for which Standing Orders Ordinance is not applicable stands satisfied vide proviso 1 to S.1 subsection (4) (c). It .is to be seen whether any right guaranteed to the respondents by Government Servants Efficiency and Discipline Rules has or has not been violated while terminating the services of the respondents. Since the learned lower Court did not advert to this question, no finding can be recorded thereon in these appeals.
3. As a result, the impugned orders are set aside and the cases are remanded to the learned lower Court for redecision on the basis of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules. The parties are directed to appear before the learned lower Court on 19‑3‑1987.
M. Y. H. 1314/Lb.P Case remanded.