Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑406 of 1981, heard on 9th July, 1981.

West Pakistan

--‑‑S. 17 (1‑A) & (1‑C)‑Order under S. 17 (1‑A) to be passed by Authority viz. Chairman and Members‑Labour Court dismissing grievance petition against termination of service for reason that in view of S. 17 (1‑C) such order could not be challenged in any court‑No evidence on record that impugned order was passed by Authority‑Jurisdiction of Court, held, not barred unless Court is satisfied that order legally passed‑Appeal against order of Labour Court in circumstances, accepted and setting aside same case remand ed by Appellate Tribunal to Labour Court to see whether impugned order passed by Authority legal ‑ Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37.

Abdur Rashid for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 9th July, 1981,

In this appeal the decision dated 19‑5‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement was dismissed, The services of the appellant were terminated by the Authority under section 17‑1 (A) of WAPDA Act. 1958 without giving any reason on the offer of payment of one month's pay in lieu of notice. According to section 17 (1‑C) an order of termination passed by the Authority cannot be challenged in any Court. For this reason the learned Labour Court dismissed the petition of the appellant: It is clear from section 17 (1‑A) that the order of termination is to be passed by the Authority himself. Authority means the Chairman and the Members. The copy of the order of termination brought on the record does not show if the order was passed by the Chairman and the Members after considering the case of the appellant. In the order it is mentioned that the Authority has terminated the service which means that the Authority has passed a separate order. Copy of the said order passed by the Authority should have been brought on the record. If it had been done it could be seen whether the order had been passed according to the provisions of section 17 (1‑A). Needless to say that only the order cannot be challenged in, a court which has been legally passed under section 17 (1‑A). So unless he Court is satisfied that the order has been legally passed the jurisdiction of Court is not barred.

As a result of the observations made above, I accept the appeal and setting aside the order of the learned lower Court remained the case' with direction that the original or certified copy of the order passed by the Authority should be perused to see whether it has been passed according to the provisions of sections 17 (1‑A), The respondent is directed to produce the original or certified copy of the order by the learned lower Court.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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