Case Details

Citation(s)
2020 SLG 1214 2020 SLD 1214 2020 PLC 150
Supreme Court of Pakistan
C.Ps. Nos. 2800-2801 of 2019, 2926-2927, 1830-L, 2067-L, 2253-L to 2255-L and 2800-L of 2019, decided on 20th January, 2020, Date of hearing: 20th January, 2020.
IJAZ UL AHSAN, JUSTICE SAJJAD ALI SHAH, JUSTICE
Mahmood Ahmed Qazi, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. 2800-2801 of 2019). Barrister Haris Azmat, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.Ps.

BASHIR AHMAD AND OTHERS

VS

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, LAHORE AND OTHERS

Law: Punjab (Gazetted) Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 1951

Section: 33

(a) Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010)--- ----S. 33---Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act (XII of 2006), Ss. 4(1)(b)(iv) & 4(1)(b)(vi) ---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968). S. 1(4), proviso---"Workman"---Grievance petition before Labour Court---Maintainability---Employees of Lahore Development Authority proceeded against under the Punjab Employees Efficiency, Discipline and Accountability Act, 2006 ("PEEDA 2006") and dismissed from service---Whether remedy for such employees lay before Labour Court---Contention of employees that despite the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 being not applicable to them, still they could maintain a grievance petition under S. 33(1) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, and that the word 'law' used in S. 33(1) also included the PEEDA 2006---Held, that employees were unable to establish that S. 33(1) of PEEDA, 2006 although containing the word 'law', would stand alone provide remedy to the employees before the Labour Court---Section 33(1) did not use the word 'law' in isolation, rather the provision clearly provided that "a worker may bring his grievance in respect of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law ...", thus, the redressal of an individual grievance of a worker could be redressed under S. 33(1), where right was guaranteed or secured to a workman under any law---In the present case, the compliant of the employees was not that any of the laws under which they had been proceeded against, had been violated nor was such the argument before the High Court---High Court had rightly held that PEEDA 2006 being itself a statute under which the employees had been proceeded against, they could not have brought their grievance before the Labour Court---Petitions were dismissed. (b) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition before High Court---Maintainability---Employee proceeded against under a statute or statutory rules of service---In case an employee was proceeded against under a statute or any statuary rules and such statute or statutory rules were violated,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492