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.
Appeals Nos. F D‑358 to 366 and FD‑401 to 409 of 1984, decided on 6th November, 1984.
‑‑S. 7 (5)‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3)‑Grievance petition against dismissal from service-- Establishment governed by Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952‑Matter not within jurisdiction of Labour Court and Authority under said Act only competent to entertain petition --Photo copy of notification declaring service of establishment as essential service produced before Labour Court‑Labour Court not relying same on grounds that original notification not produced and accepting grievance petition; Original notification produced before Appellate Tribunal ‑ Order of Labour Court in circumstances, being beyond jurisdiction set aside by Appellate Tribunal.
P L D 1983 S C 113 rel.
1984 P L C (C. S.) 325 and 1983 .P L C 16 ref.
Muhammad Mohsan Zaidi for Appellant.
Munawar Ahmad Javed for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 29th October, 1984.
The eighteen appeals captioned above arises from the decision, dated 6th June, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad. In this judgment the employees will be describ ed as the respondents and the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited as the appellant. The respondents have claimed back benefits in their respective appeals while the appellant has challenged the direction of reinstatement of the respondents in service. Since all the appeals involve common questions of fact and law, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The services of the respondents were terminated with effect from 27th April, 1983 by an oral order treating them as contractual employees. The respondents challenged the orders on the ground that they were permanent employees and the order of .termination was in violation of Standing Order 12 (3) and even under the rules of the appellant. The appellant challenged the territorial jurisdiction of the Court as well as on the ground that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act was applicable. Photostat copies of the notifications were produce( before the learned lower Court by the appellant but they were not relied upon on the ground that originals were not produced. The appellant has, however, placed before me the originals which show that the copies produced before the learned lower Court are the true photostat of the originals. These documents show that the Pakistan Essential . Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 has been made applicable to the appellant. The learned lower Court has relied upon 1984 P L C (C. S.) 325. It appears that 1983 P L C 16 which too is the ruling of the Karachi High Court in which, view contrary to the one taken in 1984 P L C (C. S.) 325, was taken was not placed before the learned lower Court. Apart from it, in the Supreme Court's ruling reported in P L D 1982 S.C. 113 which is binding. upon the learned lower Court and this Court, it has been held that no forum but the one provided by section 7 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act is competent. The case was of dismissal from service, from which the above mentioned ruling of the Supreme Court arose. I have already expressed my opinion in "Muhammad Shafi v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited", Appeal No. 101 of 1983 decided on 19th February, 1984 that in such cases the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction and only the Authority mentioned in section 7 (5) is competent, following P L D 1982 S C 113. Needless to say that the rulings of the Supreme Court on the question of law are binding on all Courts of Pakistan. I, therefore, hold that the jurisdiction of Labour Courts is barred in such ,cases.
3. As the decision of the learned lower Court is being set aside, no question of allowing back benefits to the respondents arises. As a result, all the nine appeals of the appellant are accepted and setting aside the decision of the learned lower Court, the grievance petitions of the respondents are dismissed. All the appeals of the respondents stand dismissed.
A.E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer