1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))
MUHAMMAD ZECHARIAH and others Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Karachi East and others
| Citation | 1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Salahuddin Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZECHARIAH and others Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Karachi East and others |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Salahuddin Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1990 PLP (C (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD ZECHARIAH and others Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Deputy Commissioner and District Magistrate, Karachi East and others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sami Ahmed for Petitioners.
- Abdul Ghafoor Mangi, Addl. A.‑G. for Respondent No. )
- A. Hafeez for Respondents Nos. 2 to 8.
- Date of hearing: 29th March, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 3 & 7‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Remedy against‑‑‑Petitioners working in Establishment, claimed that at the time their services were terminated they were governed by the Act and their applications against termination wire dismissed by Deputy Commissioner who was appointed as competent officer under S. 7 of the Act‑‑‑During pendency of Constitutional petition filed by petitioners against order of Dy. Commissioner, petitioners contended that in view of Supreme Court decision in case reported as 1989 S C M R 1549 petitioners could also approach Labour Court for their redress‑‑‑High Court on request of petitioners dismissed their Constitutional petition as withdrawn with liberty to approach concerned Labour Court for relief still available to them under law. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. N.I.R.C. P L D 1982 SC 125 and Pakistan Television Corporation v. M. Babar Zaman 1989 S G M R 1549 ref.
Judgment & Decree
SAEEDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑The petitioners were the employees of Respondent No. 2 and it is admitted before us that at the relevant time when the services of the petitioners were terminated on 1‑3‑1984 ,a Notification issued under section 3 of the Essential Services Act, 1952, was applicable to Respondent No. l. On 6‑3‑1984 the petitioners made a complaint Io the Deputy Commissioner concerned who was appointed as the authorised officer under section 7 of the Act but the application was dismissed oP 21‑10‑1984. A second application was moved by the petitioners to the Deputy Commissioner concerned on 11‑3‑1985 which was dismissed on 28‑7‑1985. The petitioners have challenged both the orders dated 21‑10‑1984 and 28‑7‑1985 respectively passed on their First and Second Petitions by the Deputy Commissioner in the above pCtition. At the hearing of the petition Mr. Syed Sami Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended before us that at the time the above petition was filed in this Court in accordance with the view expressed in the case of Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. N.I.R.C. P L D 1982 SC 125 fill the Courts in Pakistan "took the view" that the only remedy to an aggrieved workman of an establishment to which section 3 of the Essential Services Act, 1952, applied, was by way of filing a complaint before authorised officer under section 7 of the Act. However, this view has been revised and the law as now declared by the Supreme Court in the case of Pakistan Television Corporation v. M. Babar Zaman 1989 S C M R 1549, is that besides the remedy available under section 7 of the' Essential Services Act, 1952, an aggrieved workman of such an establishment can also now approach the Labour Court concerned under the Industrial Relations Ordinance for redress. Learned counsel, accordingly, made a request that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioners to invoke the jurisdiction of the concerned authorities under the I.R.O. to seek redress of their grievances. The request made by the learned counsel appears to be reasonable and we accordingly accept the same. The petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with no orders as to costs with liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned Labour Court for redress if still available to them under the law. H.B.T./M‑1124/K Petition dismissed as withdrawn.