Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR-549 of 1982, heard on 3rd November, 1982.

Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952)-

---S. 7 read with Martial Law Regulation [C. M. L. A.'s] No. 52, para. 10-Provisions of Act made applicable to Pakistan International Airlines Corporation by para. 10 of Martial Law Regulation No. 52 Notification not necessary - Employees of P.I.A. Corporation not entitled to grievance petition before Labour Court against termina tion of service made under rules of Corporation.

K.E.S.C. Ltd. v. N.I.R.C. P L D 1982 S C 113 and Khuda Baksh v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation C. Ps. Nos. 636 and 755 of 1980 (unreported) ref.

Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 3rd November, 1982.

DECISION

The appellant, whose grievance petition against the termination of his services by the P.I.A., in which organization he was serving as Junior Officer Engineering, has been dismissed by the learned Fourth Labour Court on the short ground that the employees of the P.I.A. are governed by the provi sions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. By paragraph 10 of Martial Law Regulation No. 52, which was published in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, dated 15-8-1981, the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, have been made applicable to all the employees of the P.I.A. It has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of K. E. S. C. Ltd. v. N.I.R.C. (P L D 1982 S C 113) that the remedy of an employee, to whom the provisions of the aforesaid Act have been made applicable and who is aggrieved by the termination of his services, lies by having resort to section 7 of the said Act. A Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in the case of Khuda Baksh v. Pakistan Steel Milli Corporation (C. Ps. Nos. 636 and 755 of 1980), relying upon the above decision, has held that the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain grievance petitions of employees, to whom the provisions of the aforesaid Act have been made applicable, against the termination of their services. The view taken by the learned Labour Court, thus, appears to be quite sound and I could concur in the same.

3. It was, however, sought to be argued by Mr. Syed Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, the learned counsel for the appellant that action has not been taken by the P.I.A. against the appellant under Martial Law Regulation 52 but under the normal disciplinary rules. - Even if the contention of the learned counsel is accepted this would make no difference for in the case of an employee to whom the provisions of the aforesaid Act have been made applicable, he cannot have resort to the Labour Court against the termination, of his services.

4. It was also sought to be argued by Mr. Syed Ashraf Hussain Rizvi that no notification has been issued applying or extending the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 to the employees of the P.I.A. No Notification, however, is necessary in this behalf as the said Act has been made applicable to the employees of the P.I.A. by paragraph 10 of the Regulation.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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