1988 PLP 200 (PLC)

This is an application under section 25‑A IRO, filed by Security Guard that his termination was illegal because he did not give evidence in the criminal case on the direction of Security Manager Mr. Agha Sajjad Hussain. It is therefore, due to this pressure, he was victimized and his services were terminated without reasons.

2. When the summons were sent to the Export Processing Zone Authority, Landhi Industrial Area, the endorsement came that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction.

3. The matter was placed on the cause list. Respondent did not appear and the case was directed to proceed ex parte, but with the directions also that Mr. Shafiq Qureshi also to satisfy the Court whether the Export Processing Zone, comes within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.

4. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi while, filing affidavit in support of ex parte proof, has also referred the judgment of the Hon'ble Judge of Sind Labour Court No. V, Karachi in the case of Gul Muhammad v. Export Processing Zone, with Head Office at Shahrah‑e‑Faisal, to show that the learned Court allowed the application that the labour law including the Standing Orders Ordinance and IRO are applicable to the employee and, therefore, according to Mr. Shafiq the jurisdiction of the Labour Court exists with all its legal consequences.

5. The attention of Mr. Shafiq Qureshi was also referred to one case of Export Processing Zone Authority Employees Union v. Processing Zone Authority, decided by this Court in application No.2 A of 1983, the order of which was announced on 29th February 1984. In this case, the reference came of notification published in the Gazette of 10‑10‑1982. It reads as follows: "In exercise of the powers conferred by section 25 of the Export Processing Zone Authority Ordinance, 1980 the Federal Government is pleased to exempt the Processing Zone from all provisions of the laws, namely IRO 1969 West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment Ordinance, 1968, the Payment of Wages Act. The Social Security Ordinance, the Old Age Benefits etc.

6. The decision of the Hon'ble Fifth Labour Court Judge is produced, no question of jurisdiction was raised. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi has not referred any other notification to the contrary that same has been superceded, cancelled or annulled. However, Mr. Shafiq Qureshi took the time from the Court to see the notification and to argue further or to concede regarding jurisdiction. He was allowed the time.

7. Before the Court proceeds to examine, Mr. Shafiq's latest arguments which have come, the Court points out about the endorsement by the respondent, what the Process Server has written on the summons of the Court that the manager concerned informed the Process Server of the Court that Labour Court has no jurisdiction, has no legal precedent that the respondent instead of making appearance before the Court of law and to defend the petition, to write endorsement in this manner in the Civil Proceedings, raises two questions firstly respondent is deemed to have been served for the purpose of further proceedings that he acknowledged the service of the notice, secondly the procedure followed by him by making statement his unusual procedure, to which perhaps the respondent was not aware that such objections would have been vindicated by making appearance in the Court and raised the question of jurisdictional controversy. By his appearance, through legal representative the respondent would have assisted, more on the question of law, to meet with the contentions of the applicant's representative that may arise, to facilitate the disposal of the question of law. It is in that context, the Court has itself taken the assistance from the notification referred in one case by Mr. Samiullah Advocate of this Labour Court. The requirements of justice can also be satisfied, if by appearance of the representative the notification may have been referred to avoid that the miscarriage of justice may not occur to create further litigation.

8. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi, however, has made attempt to overcome this difficulty that the Court can even take cognizance of this application where the grievance is against the Authority and not against the Export Zone, to which the above notification restricts the application of the labour law.

9. With due respect to the view advanced by Mr. Shafiq Qureshi representing the applicant in this matter, it may be pointed to him that Authority and the Zone are not seperable. If any incident has occurred during the course of the employment and the Security Manager committed violation of the freedom of chowkidar to do, what was not permissible by the law the remedy of such grievance if is sought through Labour Court the notification restricting the application of Court Labour laws to the Processing Zone, the jurisdiction of this Court is barred by law. Furthermore, the prayer is to be examined, what the applicant pleads for. He wants re‑instatement against wrongful termination. If the termination can not be up‑set in respect of the job which comes within the zone, to contend that the Labour Court to take cognizance against the Export Processing Zone is legally misconceived. Mr. Shafiq Qureshi has produced no other notification to show that exemption has been removed, for he had the ample time.

10. In the result, therefore, if the jurisdiction does not exist a wrong forum is chosen or it is chosen under the misunderstanding of the legal position, for breach of contract of personal service, the wrongful termination can be vindicated in the Civil Court for the damages if established. Application No.2 of 1973 of this Court's decision to form part of record. Order accordingly. A. E./983‑Lb.S??????????? Application not entertained.