1989 PLP 947 (PLC(CS))

S. 1--Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 19(9), S. 25-Ar--Jurisdiction of Labour Court--Ouster of jurisdiction by application of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952--Notificalion applying provisions of Act. is effective only if published in the official Gazette--Publication of Notification in official Gazette not proved--Labour Court, in circumstances, held, was not justified and competent to hold that its jurisdiction was barred--Order of Labour Court set aside and case remanded for redecision after decision on point of jurisdiction. H.R. Haider for Appellant. Abdur Rashid Malik for Respondent. Date of hearing: 2nd May, 1988. The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision dated 10-1-1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits. 2. A question was raised before the learned lower Count that Essential benefits Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 had been made applicable to the appellant and therefore the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction. The learned lower Court has held that notification applying Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 to the appellant was issued commencing the period of six months from 4-12-1980 and the appellant was dismissed from service on 20-3-1981, therefore, the remedy to the appellant was not in the Labour Court. There is a letter of Central Ministry dated 25-5-1981 whereby application of Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 was extended for further six months commencing the period from 4-12-1981. The period was to end on 3-6-1982. The grievance petition was brought in February. 1982 But the difficulty is that it has not been proved that this notification was actually published in the official Gazette. Such notifications take effect if they have been published in the official Gazette. The respondent was given adjournment to bring the original notification or its certified copy but none has been produced. Since no notification published in the official Gazette was produced before the learned lower Court, it was not competent and justified to hold that jurisdiction of the Labour Court was barred. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable. 3. Accepting the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision the case remanded to the learned lower Court for fresh decision on the point of 1 jurisdiction. The parties will be at liberty to produce evidence on the point. If the learned lower Court comes to the conclusion that it has jurisdiction, the case will be decided on merits and on other legal points, if any. A.E./543/Lb. P ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.