1984 PLP 530 (PLC)

Aqeel Ahmed Ansari v. PIAC and 2 others 1982 P L C 1023 ref. Karachi. Electric Supply Corporation. v. National Industrial Relations Commission P L D 1982 S C 113 and Khuda Bux v. Steel Mills Corpora tion and others 1983 P L C 16 rel. M. M. Jeelani for Appellant. Date of hearing : 12th November, 1983. The appellant was working with the respondent establishment as a driver. He was dismissed from service with effect from 20th December, 1982, which date, vide order, dated 10th February, 1983, was changed to 12th January, 1983. He served a grievance notice, dated 28th March, 1983, on the respondent establishment and since his grievance was not redressed, he filed an application under section 25‑A, I. R. O. 1969, before te learned Labour Court No: V, from where it was transferred and was ultimately decided and dismissed by the learned Labour Court No. III, Karachi, vide order, dated 15th October, 1983, solely on the ground that the employment in the respondent establishment was declared as Essential Services, vide Notification of the Federal Govern ment, dated 2nd September, 1982, under section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and that the appellant having been dismissed from service with effect from 12th January, 1983, during the period the Notification was in force the grievance application before the learned Labour Court was not maintainable.

2. I have heard Mr. M. M. Jeelani for t s e appellant. There is no dispute that the appellant was dismissed from service when the Notification declaring the services of the respondent establishment as Essen tial was in force. Mr. M. M. Jeelani has mainly contended that the period of Notification expired on 10th March, 1983 whereas the grievance notice served by the appellant on the respondent establishment was dated 28th March, 1983, and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court was not ousted. The contention in that respect seems to have no force for the simple reason that the provisions of section 7 (a) of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, has clearly the effect of taking away the vested right and section 7 (a) provides to have an overriding effect over other laws conflicting with the provisions of the above Act, including the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. There fore, in such a situation, no question of action under the provisions of section 25‑A, I. R. O., 1969, would legally arise and the fact that the grievance notice was served on the respondent after the period of Notification had expired would not help the case of the appellant, at all. Mr. M. M. Jeelani has relied on the case of Aqeel Ahmed Ansari v. P. I. A. C. and 2 others (1982 P L C 1023) in support of his contention. But the Supreme Court in the case of Karachi Electric Supply Corporation v. National Industrial Relations Commission (P L D 1982 S C 113). contemplated a total exclusion of jurisdiction of the Labour Courts in such a situation. The Hon'ble Sind High Court following this decision of the Supreme Court in the case, subsequently decided, Khuda Bux v. Steel Mills Corporation and others (1983 P L C 16) has held the same view. I would, therefore, find that the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court was barred in the circumstances of the present case and the application under section 25‑A, I. R. O., 1969, filed by the appellant was not maintainable. Accordingly, no exception can legally be taken to the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court.

3. The appeal is dismissed summarily. A. E. Appeal dismissed.