Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 908 of 1974, decided on 18th May 1976,

---S. 25-A read with Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952), Ss. 3 & 6 and Pakistan Essential Services (Mainte nance) Rules, 1962, r. 3(1)-Jurisdiction of Labour Court-Whether ousted in respect of employees of essential services-Termination of service and re-instatement-Covered by expression "conditions of service" used in S. 6 of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952-Such matter can be made subject-matter of "directions of Authority regulating wages or conditions of services" under S. 6(2), Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 and Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Rules, 1962-Such direction can either be on specific matter or on general policy matters-Power of Authority to give directions - Includes power to adjudicate upon individual cases or disputes between employer and workmen-Jurisdiction of Labour Courts, held, ousted from all such matters.

General Manager, Heavy Mechanical Complex v. Bashir Ahmad Malt) and another W. P. No, 885 of 1975 (unreported) rel.

WAPDA v. Punjab Labour Court No. 3 W. P. No. 642 of 197 (unreported) distinguished.

Said Omar v. Federation of Pakistan P L D 1956 Lab. 382 and Sura Narain Anand v. N. W. F. P. A I R 1949 P C 112 ref.

Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Waraich for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Farooq for Respondent.

Dates of hearing: 10th and 11th May 1976.

The petitioners were employees of the Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation, Rawalpindi. Their services were dispensed with by the Broadcasting Authorities, This action was challenged by invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts by the petitioners under the provisions of section 25-A of the Industrial Rela tions Ordinance, 1969. Ultimately, the Punjab Labour Court No. 2 Lahore, taking, note of the objection that a Notification No. S. R. O. 138 (1)/73, dated 30^th January, 1970, had been issued whereby all classes of employment under the Pakistan broadcasting Corporation were declared to be an essential service under the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, held that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain or adjudicate upon the petitions preferred under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1969. The question which falls for determination in this writ petition is whether the provisions of the Essential Services (Mainte nance) Act, 1952, oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts to entertain petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969

2. This question has been extensively dealt with by my learned brother Shafi-ur-Rehman, J. in the case of General Manager, Heavy Mechanical Complex v. Bashir Ahmad Malik and another W. P. No. 885 of 1975, decided on 28-4-1976 In the said case the services of certain employees of the Heavy Mechanical Complex, Taxila, District Rawalpindi had been terminated. They first approached the Junior Labour Court and then the Labour Court in appeal, but these Courts refused to entertain their claim on the ground of want of jurisdiction, in view of the extension and application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, to this establishment. They then took their grievances to the Chairman, Industrial Relations Commission as "specified authority" under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and in spite of an objection having been raised with regard to the jurisdiction of the Chairman of the said Commission to deal with individual grievances so brought before him, the jurisdiction was assumed and an order re-instating the individual workers was passed and the decision so given was ordered to be treated as a direction and published in the Gazette of Pakistan. The question which arose for consideration before this Court, in the said case, was whether the authority specified under section 6 of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 for the purposes of regulating the wages and other conditions of service could entertain individual grievances of the workmen employed in the industry to which the provisions of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act bad been extended and applied, and to adjudicate upon the same

3. In the present case the stand taken on behalf of the respondents is also the same, namely, that the Labour Courts under the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions under section 25-A of the Ordinance, and the proper remedy for the petitioners was to move the Chairman, Industrial Relations Commission or his prodecessor, the Central Labour Commissioner, the "specified authority" under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, for the redress of their grievance.

4. Sections 6 and 7-A of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act are in the following terms:-

"6.-(1) The Central Government may make, rules regulating or empowering a specified authority to regulate the wages and other conditions of service of persons or of any class of persons engaged in any employment or class of employment declared under section 3 to be an employment or class of employment to which this Act applies.

(2) When any such Rules have been made or when any directions regulating wages or conditions of service have been given by an authority empowered by such Rules to give them, any person failing to comply therewith is guilty of an offence under this Act.

7-A. The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding any thing to the contrary contained in the Trade Unions Act, 1926 or the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, or any other law."

5. In 1962 the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Rules, 1962 (here inafter referred to as Rules) were promulgated. The relevant parts of them are reproduced below:

"1.-(1) These rules may be called the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Rules, 1962.

(2) They shall apply to every employment and every class of employment which the Central Government may, in pursuance of subsection (1) of section 3 of the Act, declare to be an employment or class of employment to which the Act applies.

2

(a)

(b)

3.-(1) The Central Labour Commissioner is hereby empowered to regulate, subject to the other provisions of this rule, the wages and other conditions of service of persons or class of persons engaged in any employment or class of employment to which these rules apply.

(2)

(3) All directions of the Central Labour Commissioner regulating wages and other conditions of service under sub-rule (1) shall be published in the official Gazette."

6. An amendment was made in the Rules on 22-7-1974 and for clause (b) of rule 2, the following clause (b) was substituted:-

"Chairman" means the Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission constituted under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969) and includes a member of that Commission authorized by the Chairman in this behalf."

The other amendments made were that for the words "Central Labour Commissioner" wherever occurring in the rules the word "Chairman" was substituted and the expression "Central Government" was replaced by the expression, "Federal Government."

7. In the precedent case (W. P. 885 of 1975) after examining the provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and those of the Essential Services Act, 1952, it was held that although the two provisions were not entirely inconsistent and repugnant to one another in so far as the Essential Services Act mainly created offence and only indirectly or consequently was concerned with rights, whereas the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, mainly dealt with rights nevertheless these deficiencies were made up "by providing for the appointment of an authority under the Act whose power is so plenary, so compulsive and so specific, untrammelled by any technical rule of procedure that no scope is left for any other forum, any other proce dure or decision from any other quarter on matters within the domain of the specified authority." It was further observed that "it is a matter of great public importance that there should be no conflict or clash of jurisdiction between two authorities apparently equally competent. If the ascendancy of one over the other is manifest the supersession of the other follows by necessary implication. A large number of judicial decisions rendered by the Labour Courts were then noticed wherein it was held that it was only the specified authority under the Rules which was empowered to take cognizance of matters concerned the conditions for service of workman and the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was barred in respect thereof. The conclusion was expressed in the following words: ---

..barring one case of Habibullah Khan, the departmental practice and the judicial precedent had been consistently ousting jurisdiction of the Labour Courts on matters within the domain of the specified authority. This it appears is consistent with the rules of interpretation already dealt with."

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, referred to the judg ment of Mr. Justice Muhammad Akram, passed in W. P. 643 of 1974 in the case of WAPDA v. Punjab Labour Court No. 3 and another, wherein, while dismissing the petition of the WAPDA on various grounds, it was observed that despite the extension and application of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act to an employee in the Machinery Pool Organization under the WAPDA, it did not necessarily follow that thereby the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was barred from entertaining the application made by the employee under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (now substituted by section 25-A) against the wrongful termination of his services. In that case his Lordship simply considered the effect of the provisions of section 7-A of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act and did not advert to the provisions of section 6 and Rules framed thereunder.

Moreover, there were other grounds noticed by his Lordship, on which the ultimate decision was rested. Hence the said judgment is not of much assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioners.

9. In view of the foregoing, the contention that there being no repugnancy between the provisions of the Essential Services (Maintenance) A Act and those of the industrial Relations Ordinance, the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the matter, cannot be accepted.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that the Rules framed under section 6 of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, did not fall within the ambit of the expression "any other law" mentioned in section 7-A of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act. The argument was that section 7-A provides that the provisions of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act shall have effect, not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Trade Unions Act, 1926, or the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, or "any other law", which implies any other "statutory law" and not simply any rules.

11. This argument is misconceived. It is established law that statutory rules have the status of law and are enforceable as such. Moreover, the provision for issuance of directions for regulating wages or the conditions of service, on the specified authority is made in the Essential Services Act itself.

12. Another argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that the Rules of 1962 have only authorised the Central Labour Commissioner to issue directions regulating the wages and other conditions of service of persons to whom the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act applies, but matters such as termination of service and mere particularly re-instatement into service are not covered by the expression regulation occurring in section 6 (2) of the said Act. In this connection the case of Said Omar v. Federation of Pakistan (P L D 1956 Lah.382) was referred to.

13. The above question was also raised in the precedent case, viz. The General Manager, Heavy Mechanical Complex v. Bashir Ahmad Malik and another already referred to, and the learned Judge deciding it, overruled it. While doing so, he, inter alia, referred to the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Suraj Narain Anand v. N. W. F. P. (A I R 1949 P C 112), wherein it was held that termination of service was covered by the expression "conditions of service". I respectfully agree with the above decision and am of the opinion that the questions of termination of service and re-instatement into service can be made the subject-matter of "directions regulating wages or conditions of service" by the authority empowered to do so, under the Rules. The provisions of section 6 (2) of the Essential Services Act reproduced in para. 4 above, are wide enough to cover such situations. As held in the prece dent case "directions can be on specific matters as well as on general policy matters" and the power of giving directions includes the power to adjudicate upon individual cases or disputes between the employer and the workman.

14. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, impugned herein, that the Labour Courts did not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, is in accordance with law and does not call for any interference. The petitioners, if so aggrieved, can even now approach the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission for the redress of their grievances. The jurisdiction of the Labour Courts, however, to consider their grievances stands ousted by the provisions of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

15. The result is that this writ petition is dismissed, but in view of the intricate question of law involved therein, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.