1987 PLP 1483 (SCMR)
ABDUL RAHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs ESSO EASTERN Inc. and others‑‑(Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 1483 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL RAHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs ESSO EASTERN Inc. and others‑‑(Respondents |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 1483 (SCMR)?
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 1987 PLP 1483 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Abdul Kadir Shaikh and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 1483 (SCMR) (ABDUL RAHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs ESSO EASTERN Inc. and others‑‑(Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Ziauddin Qureshi Advocate Supreme Court and Ahmadullah Faruqi Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Fateh Ali M. Vellani Advocate Supreme Court and Nizam Ahmad Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.1.
- Noor Muhammad, Advocate Supreme Court and A.A. Dastgir Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.4.
- Date of hearing: 19th February, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of Sind High Court dated 9‑4‑1986 in Constitutional Petition D/169 of 1984). ‑‑‑‑S. 7‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A‑ Services of petitioner, an employee of establishment covered by Essential Services Act, terminated on basis of misconduct‑‑Contention of petitioner that S.25‑A of In trial Relations Ordinance was wider in its scope than the provisions of S.7, Essential Services Act and that relief of re‑instatement could be allowed under S. 25‑A of Ordinance to a dismissed employee while S.7 of Act did not provide such relief, held, was misconceived in view of decision in P L D 1982 SC
13. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited v. National Industrial Relations Commissioner and another P L D 1982 SC 113 ref. Khuda Bux v. Pakis n Steel Mill Corporation and others 1983 P L C 16 cited.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑‑ The petitioner was employed with Messrs Esso Eastern Inc. respondent No.1. His services were terminated on 12‑10‑1982 on the basis of misconduct. The petitioner served the respondent with legal notice and thereafter he filed an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Sind Labour Court Karachi for re‑instatement in service with full back benefits. The learned Labour Court dismissed the application on the ground that the provisions of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act LIII of p. 952, and it is admitted fact that section 25‑A of the I.R.O. 1969 can allow the re‑instatement while section 7 of Act LIII of 1952 bar such proceedings. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed vide order dated 30‑10‑1983. Thereafter, he filed constitutional petition in the Sind High Court which was also dismissed by a learned Division Bench vide the impugned judgment dated 9‑4‑1986.
2. Learned counsel contended that the learned Courts below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by not examining in detail the evidence on record and by not appreciating the special circumstances and limitations which compelled the petitioner to seek remedy under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969; that the finding of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal are wrongly based on a decision of this Court Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited v. National Industrial Relations Commission and another P L D 1982 SC 113 and a decision of the Sind High Court in Khuda Bux v. Pakistan Steel Mill Corporation and others 1983 P L C 16; that section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is wider in its scope than the provisions of section 7 of the Essential Services Act LIII of 1952, and it is admitted fact that section 25‑A of the I.R.O. 1969 can allow the re‑instatement while section 7 of Act LIII of 1952 does not provide the relief of reinstatement.
3. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that the argument is misconceived in P L D 1982 SC 113 it was held by this Court as under: "Where a statute provides a forum for dealing with the violation no other authority can be a substitute for it, the moreso when the act is an emergency legislation and has taken care to exclude the application of other laws which provide a forum for resolving the dispute between the employer and the employee arising from the violation of the terms and conditions of the service." Thus, we find no merit in this petition, and refuse to grant leave / Petition dismissed. S.Q./A‑58/S Leave refused