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‑268 of 1984, decided on 6th November, 1984.
‑‑‑Ss.5(i) & (11) & 7(9)‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court in essential service employees‑‑Ousted only in cases falling under S.5, Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952‑‑Stoppage of annual increment‑‑Matter not covered by S.5(i) & (ii) hence not within jurisdiction of Authority under S.7(5) of said Act‑‑Grievance petition against such penalty, held, within jurisdiction of Labour Court‑‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition on grounds of jurisdiction set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case remanded to Labour Court for decision on merits.
P L D 1982 S C 113 distinguished.
Appellant in person.
Mohsin Zaidi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 29th October, 1984.
The decision, dated 14‑3‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the grievance petition of the appellant was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
2. The finding of the learned lower Court is not sustainable. The Authority that has been invested with powers under section 7(5) can exercise jurisdiction only in cases falling under section 5 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The offences detailed in section 5(1) (a) to (c) relate to the employees and the ones mentioned in (i) and (ii) relate to the employers. Since in the present case the grievance was of the employee against the employer, so clauses (i) and (ii) are relevant. This will be appreciated that the said clauses relating to the employers apply only to the cases where the services of an employee have been discontinued or the establishment has been discontinued. In the present case, the services of the appellant were not discontinued. He is still in service and the punishment awarded to him is of stoppage of one annual increment. So the case is not conversed by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act although the said Act has been made applicable to the respondent. The forum for remedying the, wrong alleged to have been done to the appellant, therefore, is not the one mentioned in section 7(5) but the Labour Court, if otherwise is competent to adjudicate upon the dispute. The Supreme Court's ruling P L D 1982 S C 113, therefore, is distinguishable.
3. As a result, the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded for decision on merits.
A. E
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer