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.
Appeal No. LHR‑282 of 1983, decided on 19th November, 1983.
‑‑ Ss. 3 & 7 ‑ Establishment covered by Act ‑ Remedy against cessation of service of workman on any ground‑‑Remedy‑Forum ‑‑Provided by Act‑Labour Court would not have jurisdiction Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A.
P L D 1982 S C 125 and Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. N. I. R. C.PLD1982SC113rel.
Khuda Bux v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation 1983 P L C 16; 1983 P L C 780 and 1984 P L C (C. S.) 325 ref.
Malik Muhammad Asghar for Appellant.
Syed Mohsin Zaidi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 14th November, 1983.
This appeal arises from the decision, dated 10th May, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant on the ground that Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1952 being applicable to him, the Labour Courts had no jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed upon P L D 1982 S C 125. The Supreme Court has in the said ruling held that a dismissed person has remedy under section 7 of the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1952 read with rule 3 of Essential Services Rules. The observations made by the Supreme Court are reproduced as under :‑
"Section 5 deals with the cessation of employment either at the behest of the employer or the employee. It would thus include termina tion of service according to the terms and conditions, discharge, dismissal, absence or abandonment and retrenchment. The direction issued in terms of rule 3 (2) (d) concerning the termination of employment will also be covered in view of the wide and all embracing language of this section. Any discontinuance of employ ment has necessarily to be judged from the test laid down in the section namely, that it was ‑without reasonable excuse". Therefore, if the respondents felt aggrieved either by their termination of service or dismissal, they should have taken steps to institute the proceedings as provided by section 7 and in that event it would have been open to the Court to determine as to whether the termination, according to the terms and conditions of service, or by way of dismissal or discharge was without lawful excuse or not as the expression "without reasonable excuse" signifies an excuse which is not lawful."
The learned counsel for the respondent has cited on the contrary 1983 P L C 16, 1983 P L C 780 and 1984 P L C (C. S.) 325. The first mentioned ruling 1983 P L C 16 goes against the respondent. In this ruling P L C 1982 S C 125, P L D 1982 S C 113 has been followed. In 1983 P L C 780 too the Supreme Court ruling has been followed. So far as 1984 P L C (C. S.) 325 is concerned, it was delivered before P L D 1982 S C 113 came in the field, in which contrary view has been taken, so it cannot be followed. As held by the Supreme Court, Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1952, being special law, it excludes the other forums provided by other law and the only forum that will be competent to deal with the A sin its section of service on any ground whatsoever is the one provided by the said Act in ets section 7. Learned lower Court thus rightly held that the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction. It has not been argued that Essential Services Maintenance Act is not applicable to the respondent establishment.
2. As a result of what has been observed above, the appeal fails and is thus hereby dismissed.
A. E.
Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer