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. KAR‑301 of 1984, heard on 30th May, 1985.
‑‑S. 7, Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXI II of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Establishment governed by Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952‑Grievance against termination of service Remedy to be sought by proceedings under S. 7 of Act ibid‑Order of Labour Court dismissing grievance petition for lack of jurisdiction upheld by Appellate Tribunal.
P L D 1982 S C 113 ; P L D 1982 S C 125 and Ashfaq v. Karachi Gas Company Ltd. 1983 P L C 525 rel.
Appellant in person.
Muhammad Humayun for Respondents.
Date of hearing ; 30th May, 1985.
S. A. Kamal has referred an appeal against the impugned order of Sind Labour Court No. 111, Karachi, who dismissed his grievance petition filed under section 25‑A, I. R. O., 1969, vide his order, dated 28th October, 1984.
2. The admitted position in the instant appeal is that the appellant is governed by the provisions of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The Supreme Court judgment is referred in this case reported in P L D 1982 S C 113 and P L D 1982 S C 125. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case reported in P L D 1982 S C 113 have categori cally stated that the workman to whom the provisions of the aforesaid Act are applicable, if he is aggrieved by the termination of his service can take steps to institute proceedings as provided under section 7 of the said Act. In this case, I may also refer to a case decided by this Tribunal re ported in the case of Ashfaq v. Karachi Gas Company Ltd.( 1983 P L C 525), in which the Chairman of this Tribunal, Mr. Justice (Rtd.) Z. A. Channa has held as under
"The said decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court came up for consideration before a Division Bench of the High Court in the case of Khuda Bakhsh and it was held by the Division that the Labour Courts had no jurisdiction in case of termination of services of an employee to whom provisions of the said Act were applicable. Precisely the same view was expressed by me much earlier in the case of Burmah‑Shell Limited v. Sind Labour Court No. IV."
3. In this case the Law applicable to the appellant is Pakistan Essen tial Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 and therefore, for the reasons discussed by me above, I would uphold the decision of Labour Court and dismiss the appeal in limine.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer