Find a Lawyer

Dispute No. 9 of 1973, decided on 15th October 1973.

---- S. 32(1-A) and Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952), Ss. 3 & 6-Government Transport Service, an essential service Neither any notification under S. 3 or Essential Services Act issued nor Industrial Relations Ordinance placing any bar for raising industrial dispute by employees of service-Labour Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of industrial dispute relating to wages and other conditions of service of employees of Transport Service.

Mirza Nazir Ahmed Naz for Petitioner.

Abdul Rehman Ansari for Respondent.

This is an industrial dispute, filed by G. T. S. Labour Union (registered), Lyallpur against Punjab Road Transport Board. Attached to it is a charter of demands and a Failure Certificate. There are 14 demands which are prayed to be adjudicated through an award of this Court.

Respondent has filed his written statement through its Assistant Director (Labour Welfare), P. R. T. B., Lahore who has been authorised to do so. Respondent raised a preliminary objection in his written statement to the effect that the demand raised in this dispute are almost subservient to demand No. 1 of dispute No. 11/73 between the same parties. That the demand No. 1 was already accepted by the Manage ment during the pendency of this dispute but only objection to it by the Union was that introduction of National Pay Scales should be done from 1-3-1973. Union left that demand. After this respondent agreed to proceed further. So case was fixed for evidence on the next date of hearing i.e. 25-9-1973. Respondent again filed another legal objection to the effect that as all the demands pertain to condition of service therefore no adjudication can be done by Labour Courts regarding these demands. P. R. T. B. is an essential service as is clear from West Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958 and under section 6 of the said Act Government has to empower an authority to regulate the wages and conditions of service of the employees. So Government has framed Punjab Road Transport Rules and the Board has been authorised by the Government under rules 7 and 13 of the said Rules to prescribe the rules of service of the Board. Such rules have been framed and are in existence. So this Court has got no jurisdiction.

On this legal objection both the parties were given an opportunity to produce evidence and arguments which they have done. Before I proceed further, I would like to give a finding on this issue. Learned Representative of the petitioner-Union Mirza Nazir Ahmad Naz has drawn my attention to the effect that under section I subsection (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 jurisdiction of this Court regarding Government Transport has not been ousted. Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 which is a Central Act is also silent in this respect and West Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958 is a Provincial Act and therefore cannot override the above Central Statutes. Moreover, under section 6 of West Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958 no authority fin been appointed to frame the rules. Rules to which the learned Represent of the respondent has referred are rules under section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. So it is clear that no authority under section 6 of W. P. Essential Services (Maintenance) Ordinance, 1958 was appointed to frame rules and thus Government intends not to bar the jurisdiction of Labour Court regarding the condition of service of the employees of Road Transport Board. If Provincial Government had any intention to do so it could recommend to the Central Government to make necessary amendment in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 or Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. Under section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 a notification could be made. The rules under section 70 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1965 to which learned Representative has referred to are inconsistent with the legal provisions of the -Motor Vehicles Act, 1965 and rules made by the Punjab Government. They are also inconsistent to Industrial Relations Ordinance, 190 which is a Central Statute. I agree with learned Representative of the Union and accordingly hold that as there is no bar in the industrial Relations Ordnance, 1969 A and there is no notification under section 3, Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, therefore, this Court has jurisdiction to take cognizance of industrial disputes relating to wage3 and other conditions of services of the petitioner-Union.

Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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