1979 PLP 250 (PLC)

(c) Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952)‑

S. 6 read with Economic Reforms Order, 1972, Ss. 6 & 8‑Jurisdiction of Specified Authority‑Section 6 of Economic Reforms Order, 1972 -Restricted only to discretion vested in Managing Director of taken over industry to decide at time of take over whether to drop some member of staff and not to cases of termination on account of any fault or charge under other law‑Termination of service on account of alleged misconduct‑Matter, held, within jurisdiction of Specified Authority‑[PECO Ltd. v. Muhammad Nazir Khan P L J 1975 Lah. 289 held not applicable]. Zafarul Ahsan v. The Republic of Pakistan P L D 1960 S C 113 and Mehr Dad v. The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore P L D 1974 S C 193 distinguished. PECO Ltd. v. Muhammad Nazir Khan P L J 1975 Lah. 289 held not applicable. Shafqaat Ahmad Chaudhry v. Managing Director, PECO Limited, Lahore 1977 P I, C 189 and Akbar Ali Bokhari v. State Bank of Pakistan P L D 1977 Lah. 234 rel. (d) Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952)‑ ‑ Ss. 6 & 7‑A read with Economic Reforms Order, 1972, Ss. 6 & 8 Provisions of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 Whether repealed by Economic Reforms Order, 1972. Petition before the Specified Authority under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 against dismissal was contested on the plea that by implication the provisions of the Act had been repealed by the Economic Reforms Order, 1972 and as such the Specified Authority bad no jurisdiction: Held : It has now been firmly laid down that Courts or Judicial Tribunals have not to readily infer repeal by implication. It is in case of impossibility of reconciliation between the two Statutes that repeal by implication may be held to have taken place. Now, the Economic Reforms Order is exclusively addressed to the process of take over of certain industries and does not deal with the terms and conditions of the employees of such concern; except that section 6 gives a discretion to the Managing Director to drop an employee. The Act occupies a different field and does not come into clash with the provisions of Economic Reforms Order. As soon as a taken over industry is declared an Essential Service, the provisions of the Act will come into play and there will be complete change of 4urisdiction in so far as the determi nation of the conditions of service of the employees are concerned, by operation of section 7‑A of the Act. Humayun Khan v. REPCO Ltd., Rawalpindi 1976 P L C 853 ; Muhammad Irshad v. REPCO Ltd., Rawalpindi Case No 18 (1) of 1977 and Shafqaat Ahmad Chaudhry v. Managing Director, PECO Limited, Lahore 1977 P L C 189 ref. Akbar Ali Bokhari v. State Bank of Pakistan P L D1977 Lah. 234 fol. (e) Industrial dispute‑ ‑‑ Domestic enquiry‑Fundamental rule of natural justice‑Cannot be disregarded‑ Independent enquiry ‑Mandatory‑Bias‑Person named as accused in counter complaint by accused appointed as Enquiry Officer‑Bias strongly presumed on part of such person‑Accused from initial stage objecting to his appointment as Enquiry officer‑Enquiry report of such officer, held, vitiated by bias and nullity in eye of law Consequential order passed on basis of such order, held, not sustain able‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment {Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S. O. 15 (4). Chairman, WAPDA v. Labour Union, WAPDA Electrical do Mechanical Workshop 1967 P L C 768; Berger v. U. S. A. USSR 65 Lawyers' Edn. 581; J. F. Garmer on Administrative Law, 1964 End., p. 104 ; S. A. De Smith on Judicial Review of Administrative Action, 1959 Edn.; p. 143; Frome United Brewerise Company Limited and another v. Keepers of the Peace and Justices for County Borough of Bath 1926 L R A C 586 and Anwar and another v. Crown PLD1955FC185rel. Aqa Asaf Jaffery for Petitioner. Abdul Rashid, Assistant Labour Officer (Legal) with Abdul Khaliq Khan for Respondent.