PLC(CS) 1983

1983 PLP 780 (PLC(CS))

MUHAMMAD SAMI Versus K. E. S. C. LTD.

Jurisdiction / Court
Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind
Decided Date
N/A
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1983 PLP 780 (PLC(CS))
Forum / Court Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind
Bench Members N/A
Parties MUHAMMAD SAMI Versus K. E. S. C. LTD.
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 780 (PLC(CS))?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 780 (PLC(CS))?

The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 780 (PLC(CS)) (MUHAMMAD SAMI Versus K. E. S. C. LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Judgment & Decree

Date of hearing :18th August, '1982. DECISION The appellant, who was originally employed as telephone operator- cum‑clerk in the respondent corporation, was promoted to the post of Assistant Public Relations Officer. His services were terminated by letter, dated 13th February, 1982, which is said to have beer, received by the appellant on 16th February, 1982. Tue appellant challenged the said order through a grievance petition filed before the learned Fifth Labour Court but the same was rejected, relying on the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of K. E. S. C. v. N. I. R. C. (PLD 1982 S C113,), on the ‑ground that the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Mainte nance) Act, 1952, are applicable to the employees of the respondent corporation anal these employees cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in respect of termination of their services. Dissatisfied with the decision of the learned Labour Court the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. The sole ground on which Mr. Sabihuddin Ahmed, the learned counsel of the appellant, has assailed the decision of the learned Labour Court is that subsection (3) of section 7 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, require that a complaint under the said section for infringement of the provision of the Act can be fled by any Officer duly authorised by the Federal Government but no such notification has been issued with the consequence that there is no forum to which an aggrieved employee can have redress. By the following notification, published in the Gazette of Pakistan, dated 25th September, 1976, the a Deputy Commissioners througout Pakistan have been authorised, within their respective jurisdiction, to make complaints in Courts in respect of offences under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 :‑ S. R. O. 955 (1)/76 . . . . . . . In exercise of the powers conferred by subsection (i) of section 4, and subsection (3) of section 7 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 (LIII of 1952), tile Federal Government is pleased to authorise the Deputy Commissioners, within their respective jurisdiction, to exercise the following powers, namely :‑ (a) to direct, by general or special order, any person or persons employed in or in connection with‑ , (i) the organisations dealing with generation, transmission, dis tribution of supply of electricity ; or (ii) the oil refineries and the organizations dealing with the pro duction, purification, transmission, distribution or market ing of oil or natural gas not to depart out of such area or areas as may be speci fied in such order , and (b) to make complaints in the Courts in respect of offences under the said Act."

3. I would, accordingly, dismiss this appeal in limine,