Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. 81 of 1973, decided on 18th December 1973.

-- S. 25-A read with Economic Reforms Order (P. O. 1 of 1972), Arts. 6 & 8-Jurisdiction of Labour Court in respect of workman of taken over industry - Bar of jurisdiction of Courts by Art. 8 of P. O. 1-Not opperative in cases of violation of Art. 6 of P. O. I-Dismissal of workman -Competent authority-Manag ing Director only and no other officer or authority-Dismissal order passed by Personnel Manager, held, violative of Art. 6-Labour Court, held, could entertain application against such order and its jurisdiction, held, not barred by Art. 8 of P. O. 1. of 1972

P L D 1960 S C 113 and P L J 1973 Lah. 452 ref

Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Appellant.

A. Hafiz for Respondent.

Heard learned representatives of the parties.

A Preliminary Objection has been raised by the learned representative of the respondent that Labour Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of this matter under the provisions of the Economic Reforms Order, 1972 and the appeal is barred by section 8 of the Ordinance. On the other hand it has been argued by Mr. Mirza Kazim that respondent-Company has been taken over under Economic Reforms Order 1972 but the appellant has been dismissed by Personnel manager who had no authority under this Ordinance rte dismiss the appellant. He challenges the order passed lay the Personnel Manager. His argument is tenable. I have seen the lower Court record and find that the appellant was dismissed by Personnel Manager vide Annexure Exhs. 1-A and P. 2. The appellant was suspended by Mr. S. A. A. A. Rizvi, Personnel Manager and be was also dismissed by him under Order P. 2. No thing has been brought on record to show that he was dismissed by Managing Director. Article 6 of the Economic Reforms Order 1972 (President Order A No. I of 1972) expressly enacts that the Managing Director alone can exercise such power. The P. O. 1 of 1972 does not contain any provision whereby a Personnel Manager or any other officer except the Managing Director is competent to take such an action. The Personnel Manager had no powers or authority under this Order to dismiss the appellant. Thus his action dismissing the appellant by Personnel Manager was without jurisdiction and in contravention of Article 6 of the Order.

It is held by Supreme Court of Pakistan P L D 1960 S C 113.

"If a statute provides that an order made by an authority under it shall not be called in question in any Court, all that is necessary to oust jurisdiction of the Courts is that the authority should have been constituted as required by statute, the person proceeded against should be subject to the jurisdiction of the authority and the order made should be such as could have been made under the statute . .

In the instant matter orders of dismissal of the appellant were passed by an incompetent person viz., Personnel Manager. His action is beyond the provisions of P. O. 1 of 1972 and without jurisdiction. Consequently Article 8 of the Order cannot oust jurisdiction of this Court. Mr. Kazim had relied on P L J 1973 Lah, 452 wherein his Lordship has held that Managing Director alone under P. O. 1 of 1972 is competent to remove an employee. This Court has jurisdiction to interfere in a matter which suffers from excess of jurisdiction. f. therefore hold that this Court has jurisdiction to hear the appeal Put off 15-I-1974 for hearing the appeal on merits.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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