1988 PLP 666 (PLC(CS))

M.A. Khadim for Appellant. Khalid Saleem for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th March, 1987. The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision dated 18‑2‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore whereby the grievance petition of the appellant for his re‑instatement in service has been returned for want of jurisdiction.

2. The ground on which the services of the appellant were terminated are that the job for which he was employed had been accomplished and no alternate job was available for him. An offer of payment of one months' pay in lieu of notice was made. This is admitted that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958 has been made applicable to the respondent establishment and on this ground the learned lower Court has held that the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that P L D 1982 S C 113 and P L D 1982 S C 125 are distinguishable, inasmuch as it was not held therein that the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction. This is true that the order passed by the N.I.R.C. had been challenged before the Supreme Court and it was found that words 'regulation of wages' did not include adjudication but at the same time it was held that the remedy lay under subsection (5) of section 7 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 and an application could be made to the Magistrate lst Class. Learned counsel says that the relief on the criminal side is available under the above‑mentioned Act and as there is no provision about civil remedy, the jurisdiction of Labour Courts is not barred. The argument has no force. The cases were of dismissal from which the rulings mentioned above arose. Since the Supreme Court held that the remedy seas only under section 7(5), there is no scope to say that an application to the Labour Court or any other Court for re‑instatement can be brought. If the Supreme Court had intended that only the N.I.R.C. had no jurisdiction, it would not have been observed that the remedy in the cases like the ones which were before the Supreme Court lay under section 7(5) of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act. The Supreme Court was aware of the fact that the prayer in the case was for re‑instatement and not for imposing any punishment anon the employer. There appears to be a wisdom for no said civil remedy in the above‑mentioned Act providing Act has been and that is that the made applicable not for ever but according to its subsections (1) and (2) of section 3, declaration for the application of the Act is to be made by notification for six months, on the expiry of which the period can be extended. It has been left at the discretion of the Central Government not to extend the application of the Act to certain establishments. It is thus, clear that when the Central Government will intend that civil remedy be sought from the ordinary Courts exercising powers of civil nature, it may decline to extend the period by means of a notification. But so long as the Act stands applicable the remedy under section 7 (5) remedy can be and of the said Act. There is no cavil between the parties the exclusion of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and other laws under section 7‑A, of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act. The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been expressly excluded and since the words are 'any other law Ordinance, 1968 also stands excluded, with the result Orders an application under section 25‑A, neither can be directly lodged under the Industrial Relations Ordinance nor by virtue of Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. The lower Court thus, has rightly found that it has no jurisdiction:

4. As a result the appeal fails and is dismissed. A.E. /339/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.