Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D‑410 of 1987, decided on 14th May, 19137.

(a) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑

‑‑‑S.8‑‑Power of Government under S.8 of Ordinance VI of 1968 to exempt an establishment from provisions of said Ordinance is of a plenary nature.

‑‑Art.199‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.8‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑Termination of services‑‑Petitioner's service terminated by establishment while was exempted by Notification under S.8 of the Ordinance by Government‑‑Petitioner having a remedy from any civil Court in form of suit for compensation or damages‑‑Grievance of petitioner that notification of exemption deprived him of his right to obtain relief from Labour Court not justified‑‑No fundamental right for seeking relief from Labour Court itself existed‑‑Petition not maintainable in circumstances.

.‑‑The petitioner has challenged the notification issued by the Government of Sind on 26th October, 1986 exempting Saudi Arabian Airlines, Karachi from all the provisions, except section 6 of the W.P. Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. This notification was issued under section 8 of the said Ordinance which reads as under:‑

"Section 8. Government may, subject to such conditions as it thinks fit to impose by notification in official Gazette, exempt any industrial or commercial establishment or class of such establishments from all or any of the provisions of this Ordinance."

The comments of M. Shaft on this provision, contained on page 999 of Labour Code of Pakistan, are that the Provincial Government has unlimited powers of making exemption from all or any of the provision of the Ordinance.

In our view the provision under section 8 authorise the Government of Sind to exempt any Industrial and Commercial establishment from the provision of Standing Order Ordinance, 1968 and these powers are of a plenary nature. There are no objective considerations involved in issuing such a notification. And therefore, it would not be possible for the superior Courts to scrutinise the basis of such notification is issued.

The petitioner has not challenged the provision of section 8 of the said Ordinance and therefore a challenge to the notification issued under section 8 is hardly competent.

The petitioner was an employee of Saudi Arabia Airlines for 5 years and his services were terminated. If he has any grievance against the termination then he can seek his remedy: from any civil Court in form of suit for compensation or damages. The grievance that the notification deprives the petitioner of his right to obtain relief from the Labour Court is not justified as section 8 which is statutory provision, allows the Provincial Government to make the exemption as done in the present case. There is no Fundamental Right of seeking relief from the Labour Court itself. The petitioners' right of seeking relief from the Civil Court is open to him. Consequently this petition is found to be not maintainable and is hereby dismissed in limine.

M.Y.H./A‑133/K

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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