1981 PLP 847 (PLC(CS))

‑‑ S. 25‑A read with Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952), S. 7‑Petition to Labour Court‑Question of jurisdiction raised that Establishment being governed by Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 Labour Court could not entertain petition of employee on service matter‑‑No proof produced‑Labour Court passing tentative order restraining Manage ment from taking action against petitioner‑Proof regarding employment governed by Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 produced subsequently‑Labour Court holding that it had no jurisdiction‑No exception, in circumstances, held, could be taken to final order passed by Labour Court‑Such action, held, did not amount to review of its own earlier decision. Hameed M. Siddiqui for Appellant. Date of hearing : 24th April, 1980. This appeal is directed against a decision given by the learned Vth Labour Court on 17th March, 1980, dismissing the appellant's grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. against him not being permitted to work and not being granted wages, on the ground that it had no jurisdic tion to entertain the said grievance petition in view of the fact that the employment of the appellant was governed by the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Service (Maintenance) tact, 1952, vide Notification No. S. R. O. 766(1) 77, dated 20th August, 1977, of the Interior Division, Government of Pakistan, and further that the Chairman, N. I. R. C., has framed rules prescribing the terms and conditions of the employees in the respondent establishment. In coming to this decision, the learned Labour Court has relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the cases of Ahmed Mian v. Sui Gas Transmission Co., decided on 4th December, 1979, and Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation v. Fatehullah Faheem, decided on 20th August, 1979.

2. It is not disputed by Mr. Hamid Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, are applicable to employment in the respondent establishment. In any case, this fact stands established by the notifica tion of the Government of Pakistan, dated 20th August, 1977. This Tribunal has held in the cases referred to in the decision of the learned Labour Court that the Labour Courts are not entitled to entertain grievance petitions by persons to whom the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Ser vices (Maintenance) Act for the time being are, applicable in respect of their employment or terms of employment. However, the contention of Mr. Hamid Siddiqui was that as the learned Labour Court had decided as a preliminary issue the question whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's grievance petition, and as the said decision was upheld by this Tribunal on appeal by the respondent establishment, the contrary view not taken by the learned Labour Court in holding that it had no jurisdiction to entertain and hear the appellant's grievance petition amounted to review by the learned Labour Court of its orders, which powers it did not possess. I regret that I find no substance in this contention of the learn ed counsel. It is true that the learned Labour Court, by, its earlier order, dated 11th January, 1978, had rejected the respondent establishment's preliminary contention that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appel lant grievance petition, but it appears that this was a tentative order, for learned Labour Court has stated in that order that "without going into merits of the case which may prejudice the rights of the parties at this stage", he was restraining the respondents from taking action against the appellant on the basis of the charge‑sheet against him. Moreover, the above order was founded on the fact that the notification of Govern ment, making the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Mainte nance) Act applicable to employment in the respondent establishment, had not been produced before the learned Labour Court when the above order was passed. There was thus no evidence before it that such a notifica tion had in fact been issued. The said notification was produced before it at a later stage of the proceedings and on production of it the Labour Court was bound to take notice of it, and in view of the decisions of this Tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction in the matter. No question of review of its orders thus arises. No other contention was raised by Mr. Siddiqui.

3. For the' foregoing reasons, I am of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine. Appeal dismissed.