Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑327 of 1984, decided on 7th November, 1984.

‑‑ Ss. 5(i) and (ii) & 7(5), Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A‑Termination of service‑Establishment declared as essential service‑Remedial forum ‑ Authority under S. 7(5) of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 viz. a Magistrate 1st Class‑‑Labour Court has no jurisdiction.

P L D 1982 S C 113 rel.

‑‑ Ss. 37 & 38‑Appeal‑Production of evidence‑Notification-- Can be produced at any stage‑Grievance petition before Labour Court sought to be not within jurisdiction of Labour Court on grounds that establishment covered by Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952‑Photo copy. of‑ Notification produced not relied by Labour Court and grievance petition accepted-- Original notification produced in appeal‑Appellate Tribunal relying upon such notification and accepting appeal_ setting aside .order of Labour Court as without jurisdiction.

P L D1982 S C 113 rel

Anees Jillani for Appellant.

Nemo for Respondent. .

Date of hearing : 30th October, 1984.

The titled appeal challenges the correctness of the decision, dated 28th April, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, whereby the respondent was directed to be reinstated in service without passing any order with regard to back benefits.‑

2. Question of jurisdiction was raised before the learned lower Court but not relying upon the photostat of the notifications it has been held that the Labour Court is competent to decide the dispute. The services of the respondent were terminated on 31st May, 1982 so it is to be seen if right from the said date till the decision of the case the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 remained applicable to the appellant. The appellant has placed before me the original notifications published in the Government Gazette. The first notification is dated 27th April, 1982 whereas the services of the respondent were terminated, as mentioned above, on 31st May, 1982. So before the date of termination of services the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act stood applicable to the appellant. Second notification is dated 19th October, 1982, third is dated 24th April, 1983, fourth is dated 26th October, 1983 and fifth and the last one is dated 22nd April, 1984. This is thus clear that upto the date of the decision of the case by the learned lower Court, the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 remained applicable. Since this is a case of termination of services, it is covered by section 5(1)(i) and according to section 7(5), only a Magistrate 1t Class has jurisdiction and no other Count is competent: I am fortified, by P L D 1982 S C 113. The photostat copies produced by the learned counsel are the true copies of the original notifications referred to above. Needles to say that a notification can be produced at any stage, if the same is relevant to the case.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent after termination of services received his dues in full and final settlement of his claim and thus was estopped from challenging the order of termination of service. He has made reference to Exh. R. 4. But the document does not show that the amount paid was in full and final settlement of the dispute. So the rule of estoppel does not apply.

4. As a result, the appeal is accepted ex pare and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petition of the respondent is filed.

A. E.

Appeal accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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