Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. SUK‑300 of 1982, heard on 17th October, 1982.

Pakistan

‑‑‑ S. 7‑Teleprinter Operator of Telephone Department‑Government servant governed by provisions of Act‑Cannot seek remedy against removal from service before Labour Court‑Proper forum‑Either Authority under S. 7 or under relevant provisions of Service Tribunals Act, 1973‑Question of jurisdiction raised before Labour Court -Plea neither considered nor any findings given thereon‑Assumption of jurisdiction in circumstances, regretted and order accepting grievance petition set aside by Appellate Tribunal‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXI11 of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 37.

Shabbir Ahmed Awan for Appellant.

Hassan Hameedi for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 17th October, 1982.

This appeal is directed against the decision of the learned Labour Court No. VII. given on 5th June, 1982 allowing the grievance petition of the respondent employee, challenging his removal from service and directing that he be re‑instated in service with back benefits.

2. A perusal of the impugned order of the learned Labour Court indicates that the appellants have specifically raised the issue of jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court to entertain the grievance petition on the ground that the respondent employee was a Government servant to whom the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, were applicable and his remedy lies elsewhere and not before the learned Labour Court.

3. It is an admitted position that the respondent was employed as a teleprinter Operator at the Central Telephone Office, Sukkur, at the relevant time. An identical issue arose in the case of General Manager, Southern Telephone Region; Karachi v. Nusrat Hussain, decided on 7th September, 1982 wherein it was held that Nusrat Hussain, who was employed as a Teleprinter Operator in the Telephones Department of Government of Pakistan, at the relevant time, was a Federal Government servant to whom the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. were applicable and he could have redress for the termination of his services under section 7 of the said Act and not,' otherwise. Relying upon the said judgment, 1 would hold that the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction in the matter and that the appellant could have resort, if so advised, to the provisions of section 7 of the Act. Alternatively,' since he is a Government servant, he could have resorted to the relevant provisions of the Federal Services Tribunal Act.

4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and would allow the appeal It is a matter of some regret that though the issue of jurisdiction of the Labour Court was raised before the learned Labour Court, this issue was neither considered by it nor any finding given thereon.

5. The amount of back benefits deposited by the appellant is ordered to be refunded.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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