Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Constitutional Petition No. D‑225 of 1981, decided on 17thiFebruary, 1982.
‑‑ S. 6‑Specified Authority‑Not empowered to adjudicate upon individual grievance‑Aggrieved party can resort to provisions of Act‑Order passed by Authority at Lahore Challenged by Constitutional Petition before Karachi High Court Contention that order having been passed at Lahore petition could have been filed in Lahore High Court‑Held: Chairman National Industrial Relations Commission acts as specified Authority throughout Pakistan hence can be sued even at Karachi‑Order of specified Authority in circumstances, held, without lawful authority and of no legal effect‑Constitutional jurisdiction‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199.
Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited v. National Industrial Relations Commission P L D 1982 S C 113 Tel.
Fateh Ali for W. Vellani for Appellant.
Khurshid Anwar Shaikh for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 17th February, 1982.
In this petition the petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:‑
"(a) declaring that the said order dated 10th February, 1981 passed by the Respondent No. 1 is without lawful authority and of no legal effect;
(b) making such order of further declarations and giving such order or further directions as may appear to this Hon'ble Court to be just and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. It is an admitted position that on 4th June, 1979 through a Notification issued by the Federal Government of Pakistan under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 declared all classes of employment in connection with the generation, transmission, distribution of supply of electricity to be employment to which the said Act was made applicable. In view of the case of Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited v. National Industrial Relations Commission (PLD1982SC113), it has been settled that respondent No. 1 has no power to adjudicate upon individual grievances and that an aggrieved party can resort to the A provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. In this view of the matter of the impugned order cannot be sustained. How ever, Mr. Khurshid Anwar Shaikh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, contends that since the impugned order was passed at Lahore the writ petition should have been filed in the Lahore High Court instead oil filing in the Sind High Court. In our view since the Chairman of the N. 1. R. C. acts as the Specified Authority under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, throughout Pakistan he can be sued even at Karachi. Even otherwise the above objection is highly technical which cannot be sustained in view of the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court as to the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1.
3. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the petition and declare that the impugned order is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondents are restrained from acting upon the same.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer