Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GA‑471 of 1984, decided on 5th November 1984.

‑‑‑S.7(5)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grienvance petition of employee of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. against dismissal‑‑Dismissed by Labour Court on grounds of jurisdiction‑‑No notification declaring establishment covered by Pakistan Essential. Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 brought on record‑‑Such notifications however found to have been brought on record in cases before Appellate Tribunal to which appellant not a party‑‑Appeal, in circumstances, dismissed‑‑Held: There was, in circumstances, no scope to say that Labour Court had jurisdiction.

Muhammad Shafi v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. Appeal No. 10 of 1983 rel.

Haji Abdul Hakeem Awan for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 29th October, 1984.

The titled appeal challenges the correctness of the decision, dated 18‑7‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service was dismissed.

2. The appellant was dismissed on the allegation of committing misconduct. The learned lower Court has dismissed the grievance petition on the ground of lack of jurisdiction. The case of the respondent before the learned lower Court was that Essential Services (Maintenance) Act has been made applicable, so the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction, The respondent failed to bring on the record all the notifications relevant to the case but in Appeal No.10 of 1983 titled as "Muhammad Shafi v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited" wherein all the relevant notifications right from March, 1981 to 1983 were produced which showed that without any break Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act of 1952 was made applicable to the respondent. No doubt, the appellant was not a party to that appeal but since the notifications relate to the respondent, a different and contrary view cannot be taken. When once it has been held that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act has been made applicable to the respondent, it cannot be held that it does not apply without any material on the record to the contrary. According to P L D 1982 S C 113 which emerged from a case of dismissal of an employee of the respondent, forum of remedy is not any other Court except the one provided in section 7(5) where the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act applies. So there is no scope to say that the learned lower Court has jurisdiction to give remedy to the appellant.

3. As a result, the appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.

A. E

Find a Lawyer Near You

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