2000 PLP 554 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 2nd June, 2000. Respondent No.2 who is an employee of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited, the petitioner herein, his services were terminated on 6‑3‑2000. He challenged the termination order before the National Industrial Relations Commission by filing a petition under section 22A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, whereupon a learned Member of the Commission ordered that "the order, dated 6‑3‑2000 is held in abeyance till the next date of hearing". The petitioner has challenged the competency of the proceedings before respondent No. 1 as also the assumption of jurisdiction and passing of the impugned order by him.

2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited is a Public Limited Company wherein the Government of Pakistan has the controlling share and administration therefore, section 2‑A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is applicable, consequently jurisdiction of other Courts and Authorities stand excluded in view of bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution and it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal which extend in the matter. In support of his contentions reliance has been placed on Syed Aftab Ahmad and others v. K.E.S.C. and others (1999 SCMR 197), Divisional Engineer, Phones v. Muhammad Shahid and others (1999 SCMR 1526) and a few other unreported judgments concerning the employees of Sui Gas Pipelines Limited.

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 contends that notwithstanding the insertion of section 2‑A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission remains intact under section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No. l and passing of the order is valid in law.

4. Section 2‑A was inserted by Act, XVII of 1997 on 10‑‑6‑1997 whereby the employees of arty Authority, Corporation, Body or Organization established by or under a Federal law or which is owned or controlled by the Federal Government or in which the Federal Government has a controlling share or interest were declared to be in service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under such authority, corporation, body or organization shall be deemed to be civil servant for the purposes of Service Tribunals Act. The petitioner‑Company does fall within such an organization, and section 2‑A is applicable to its employees. The import and effect of section 2‑A has been considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in number of cases concerning employees of different organization. In Zahirullah and 13 others v. Chairman, WAPDA, Lahore and. others (.'000 SCMR .826) it was observed that "section 2‑A which was inserted in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, by its own force, created a class of Government servants by fiction, for the purpose of allowing them to avail remedy of appeal before the Service Tribunal

and does not make any differentiation between the employees working in such organization either as regular employees or contract employees or workmen". The view taken by the Service Tribunal in the case was not approved by their Lordships and the matter was remanded to the learned Tribunal. In Abdul Haq v. G.M. SNGP Ltd., Lahore and another (2000 SCMR 925) the employee concerned had filed appeal before the Service Tribunal regarding his dismissal from service, whose appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on merits and the judgment was upheld by the Supreme Court. Gulzeb Hussain v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited and 2 others (2000 SCMR 959) also shows that section Z‑A is applicable to the employees of the petitioner‑Company and the Service Tribunal is the appropriate forum for agitating their grievance. In view of the legal position obtaining in the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has no substance and is repelled.

5. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that the Service Tribunal has not entertained certain appeals before it, therefore, it should be assumed that it is the National Industrial Relations Commission which has jurisdiction in the matter. Suffice to observe that the pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the subject are entitled to a great respect which all concerned are obliged to follow and to act accordingly. Any different view taken in some case has no binding force.

6. In Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution v. Dr. Mumtaz Ali Taj and another (PLD 1975 SC 450) assumption of jurisdiction by the Labour Court at the instance of a person, who was not a workman within the ambit of Ordinance No. XXIII of 1969, was declared by their Lordships as without lawful authority, and proceedings pending before the Labour Court were quashed. The principle so laid down by their Lordships in the said case is fully attracted to the instant case. In view of the above, the assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No. l in the matter is unwarranted by law and the order passed by it is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. This petition is accepted. No order as to costs. H.B.T./S‑46/L Petition accepted.