1984 PLP 143 (PLC)

Abdul Hafeez for Respondents. Date of hearing : 25th October, 1983. This appeal is directed against the order, dated 4th June, 1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No. 1V, Karachi, dismissing the application of the appellant filed under section 25‑A, I. R. O., 1969.

2. The brief facts leading to the appeal are that the appellant was employed as a Driver in the Establishment of the respondents. He remained absent from duty, was charge‑sheeted and ultimately dismissed from service vide order, dated 24th January, 1983. He served the grievance notice on the respondent and his grievance having not been redressed, he filed an application under section 25‑A, I. R. O., before the learned Labour Court. His application was dismissed on a short ground that by paragraph 10 of Martial Law Regulation 52, which was published in the Gazette of Pakistan (Extraordinary), dated 15th August, 1981, the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, having made applicable to all the employees of the P. I. A. the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was barred by virtue of the provisions of section 7(a) of the Act. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Labour Court, the appellant has come to this appeal.

3. I have heard Mr. M. L. Shahani for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Hafeez for the respondent and have also gone through the material evidence and the documents available on the record. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant by his learned counsel is two‑fold ; firstly, that the grievance petition was dismissed not under the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, but by virtue of paragraph 10 of the Martial Law Regulation 52, and secondly that there was inconsistency even in the provisions of Martial Law Regulation 52, paragraphs 1 and 10 and, therefore, recourse cannot be legally had even to the provisions of Martial Law Regulation 52.

4. As regards the first contention, the provisions of Pakistan Essen tial Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, have been made applicable to the employees of the respondent by paragraph 10 as the Martial Law Regula tion 52 and, therefore, it cannot be contended that the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, was not made applicable to the services of the respondent‑establishment.

5. As regards the second contention, I find no inconsistency in between the paragraphs I and 10 of the Martial Law Regulation 52, inasmuch as paragraph I says that the Regulation shall have effect notwith standing anything contained in the Pakistan Essential Services (Mainte nance) Act, 1952, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the other Acts mentioned therein, meaning thereby that the procedure and the manner prescribed in section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Mainte nance) Act, 1952, of issuing periodical Notifications declaring the services of tae respondent as essential within the meaning of section 3 of R the Act, has been done away with, whereas by paragraph 10, the provisions of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act have been made applicable to the employees of the respondent Corporation totally excluding the forum of the Labour Courts. Accordingly, there is no manner of doubt that in view of the provisions of the Martial Law Regulation 52, the applicability of which the learned counsel for the appellant has been able to challenge, the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Mainte nance) Act, 1952, have been made applicable to the services of the respondent Corporation. It has been held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of K. E. S. C. Ltd. v. N. 1.

1. C. and another (P L D 1982 S C 113), that the remedy of the employee to whom the provisions of the aforesaid Act have been made applicable and who is aggrieved by the termination of services lies by having resort to section 7 of the said Act and that the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was barred by virtue of section 7 (a) of the Act. The Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in the case of Khuda Bux v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (1983 P L C 16), relying on the above decision has held that the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition of the employees to whom the provisions of the aforesaid Act have been made applicable against the termination of their services. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respon dent has also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Syed Ziaul Hassan v. Managing Director, P.

1. A. C. and 2 others (1983 P L C 308), which decision is applicable on all fours in the facts and the circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, I concur with the view taken by they learned Labour Court in holding that its jurisdiction is barred by virtue of section 7‑A of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, to entertain and adjudicate upon the application‑ under section 25‑A,1 I. R. O., 1969, filed by the appellant.

6. Accordingly I find no force in this appeal and dismiss it. A. E. Appeal dismissed.