Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD YAMIN KHAN VS Respondent: PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
1988 P L C 591
1988 P L C 591
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
MUHAMMAD YAMIN KHAN
Versus
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION and 3 others
Appeal No.FD‑93 of 1987, decided on 11th May, 1987.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑
‑‑‑Ss.2(xxviii), 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Workman‑‑Person in service on date of filing grievance petition was covered by definition of "Workman" ‑‑Petition returned by Labour Court on plea' of want of jurisdiction‑ Decision of Labour Court set aside in appeal and case remanded for decision on merit‑‑Labour Court on remand dismissing petition on the plea that petitioner meanwhile having been retired was no longer in service hence not covered by definition of "Workman"‑‑Order of Labour Court set aside by appellate Tribunal and case remanded again for decision on merits‑‑Petitioner being in service on date of filing of grievance petition his petition was maintainable.
1985 P L C 1053 no more a good law.
Nazir Ahmad Naz for Appellant.
Ch. Mahboob Alam for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 9th May, 1987.
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal directed against the decision dated 30‑3‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad whereby the grievance petition of the appellant brought against the notice of retirement has been dismissed.
2. Previously an objection was taken on behalf of the respondent that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction, inasmuch as, Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, had been made applicable. The petition was returned but on appeal the order was set aside and the case was remanded for decision on merits. Now an objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent to the effect that since after the return of the petition the appellant was retired from service, he ceases to remain covered by the definition of 'workman'. The learned lower Court has, therefore, dismissed the petition on the ground that he not being in service is not a 'workman'. 1985 P L C 1053, even otherwise, is not attractive to the facts of the present case. A person who is not in service on the date on which he brings a grievance petition, of course according to High Court is not covered by the definition of 'workman' but in the present case the appellant was in service on the date on which he had brought the grievance petition and had actually secured a stay order restraining the respondent from retiring him from service. On the notice of retirement the appellant had brought the grievance petition, therefore, he was in service at that time. This is true that after the learned lower Court vide its previous order had returned the grievance petition, the appellant had been retired but the crucial time to be seen whether on the date on which he had brought a grievance petition he was in service or not. Since the appellant was in service on the date on which he had brought the grievance petition, he was covered by the definition of 'workman'. Even 1985 P L C 1053 has been set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeals holding that the persons who are not in service on the date on which they bring grievance petition are covered by the definition of 'workman'. Since the learned lower Court has not recorded any finding on the merits of the case, therefore, this is a remand case.
3. As a result of what has been said above the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the case is remanded for decision on merits.
A.E./359/Lb.P Case remanded.