1988 PLP 672 (PLC(CS))
CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY and 2 others Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF and 5 others
| Citation | 1988 PLP 672 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Loci, |
| Parties | CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY and 2 others Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF and 5 others |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance (XXX of 1982)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 672 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance (XXX of 1982)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 672 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Loci,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 672 (PLC(CS)) (CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY and 2 others Versus MUHAMMAD HANIF and 5 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Irfan Qadir for Petitioners.
- M.K. Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss.14(1)(b) & 23‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. l (3), 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court‑‑Provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 expressly excluded in relation to Civil .Aviation Authority in view of S.23 of Civil Aviation Authority Ordinance, 1982‑‑Plea that such exclusion if intended should have been reflected in S.1(3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, repelled‑‑Provisions of S.1(3), held, contain nothing to the effect that Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 would not apply only to those employees or establishments mentioned in Cls. (a) to (f) thereof‑‑3emedy in respect of terms of conditions of service of employees of Civil Aviation Authority by Labour Court, was barred‑‑Ad interim Order of Labour Court on petition under S.25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against transfer order of employee of Civil Aviation Authority, in circumstances, set aside in revision by Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 14th March, 1987. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 30‑9‑1986 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6 Rawalpindi is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The facts of the case relevant to the disposal of the revision captioned above are that the respondents were employees of Air Port Development Authority and since the work done by them was entrusted to Civil Aviation Authority, they were sent on deputation to the said Authority. After about 3 years the Civil Aviation Authority transferred the respondents to various far off places and they have challenged their transfer in a petition brought under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. They made an application for interim injunction for restraining the C.A.A. from implementing the transfer order. The said petition has been accepted and hence this revision.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that Industrial Relations Ordinance is not applicable to the Civil Aviation Authority vide section 23 of the Civil Aviation Ordinance, 1982, therefore, the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction. Section 23 reads as under:‑ "The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (XXIII of 1969), shall not apply to or in relation to the Authority or any person in the service of the Authority." It is clear from the section that prima facie the Industrial Relations Ordinance is not applicable to the Civil Aviation Authority. Learned counsel for the respondents in reply has made reference to section 1 subsection (3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and has argued that if the intention of the legislature had been that the said Ordinance shall not apply to the Civil Aviation Authority, such a provision would have been made therein. There is nothing in section 1(3) or in any other provision of Industrial Relations Ordinance that the Ordinance would not apply only to those employees or establishments mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of subsection (3) or in section 3(a). The question for consideration is not that the Ordinance is not applicable to Civil Aviation Authority according to any provision of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. But rather the question is whether by virtue of section 23 Civil Aviation Ordinance, the Industrial Relations Ordinance is not applicable. Since prima facie section 23 expressly excludes the application of IRO to the Civil Aviation Authority, it is difficult to hold that the Labour Courts have jurisdiction. The other argument of the learned counsel for the respondents is that by virtue of clause (b) to subsection (1) of section 14 of the Civil Aviation Ordinance, the terms and conditions of service of the respondents stand protected, therefore, the respondents could not be transferred to far off places. The question is not whether the respondents could challenge their transfer orders but the question is of forum. Th,e respondents may challenge transfer orders if it is against their terms and conditions of service before a competent forum but so far as Labour Courts are concerned their jurisdiction is barred inasmuch as the Industrial Relations Ordinance is not by virtue of section 23 applicable to the Civil Aviation Authority,.
4. Since prima facie the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 does not appear to be applicable, the respondents have no prima facie case, which is one of the conditions for issuing a stay order. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable.
5. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the application for interim stay is dismissed. A.E./340/Lb.P Revision accepted.