1985 PLP 912 (PLC)
KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI Versus S. RAIS AH MAD JAFRI AND ANOTHER
| Citation | 1985 PLP 912 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi High Court |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Haider Ali Pirzada, JJ |
| Parties | KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI Versus S. RAIS AH MAD JAFRI AND ANOTHER |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 912 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 912 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi High Court bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Haider Ali Pirzada, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 912 (PLC) (KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY CORPORATION LTD., KARACHI Versus S. RAIS AH MAD JAFRI AND ANOTHER). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S. M. Nurul Hassan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing : 15th January, 1985.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Art. 199 ‑ Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, (LIII of 1952), S. 4‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 25‑A‑Employee of Karachi Electric Supply Corporation‑‑Termination of service‑National Industrial Relations Commission, held, was not competent to entertain application of employee of Karachi Electric Supply Corporation as provisions of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 were applicable to its employees. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation v. Notional Industrial Relations Commission and another P L D 1982 S C 113 rel. Respondents (absent).
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.‑This petition is directed against an order dated 17th January, 1980 passed by respondent No. 1 acting as a Senior Member of N.I.R.C. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that respondent No. 2 was working as dispenser in the petitioner medical department. His services were terminated by an order dated 9th January, 1978. He was again appointed and thereafter his services were again terminated on 13th June, 1978. It is the case of the petitioner that the above appointment was purely temporary. However upon termination of his services on 13th June, 1978 respondent No. 2 after serving a grievance notice filed an application before the learned Second Labour Court at Karachi under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. 1969 but the same was dismissed by an order dated 20th October, 1979 on the ground that since the pro visions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 were applicable to the petitioner's employees, respondent No. 2 was not entitled to file a petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. Thereupon, respondent No. 2 approached respondent No. 1 who passed the above impugned order ordering of reinstatement of respondent No.
2. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.
2. Respondent No. 2 has been served by substituted service for today namely by publication in daily Urdu newspaper `Mashirq' dated 5th January, 1985. The case has been called out several times since morning but no body has turned up on behalf of respondent No.
2. It is now 13.30 p. m. and therefore we have proceeded with the case.
3. Mr. Noorul Hassan in support of his contention that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction in the matter has referred to the latest judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Karachi Electric Supply Corporation v. National Industrial Relations Commission and another (P L D 1982 S C 113) in which a Full, Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold that the N. I. R. C. was not competent to entertain an application of an employee of K.E.S.C. as the provisions of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 were applicable to its employees. The instant case is covered by the above judgment inasmuch as the appellant in the above case of the Supreme Court was the present petitioner.
4. We therefore allow the petition and declare the impugned order as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. However there will be no order as to costs. A. A. Petition accepted,