1974 PLP 56 (PLC)

(2) That by virtue of section 6 of the aforementioned Act the Government had framed Punjab Road Transport Rules regulating the wages and conditions of service of the employees and as such the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Industrial Dispute. The learned Labour Court gave an interim award overruling the afore mentioned preliminary objections. Aggrieved by the above award the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. The point for determination is as to whether the West Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958 will apply or the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, LIII of 1952 will apply in this case. The former is a Provincial Act and the latter is a G.‑ntral Act. Section 3 of the Provincial Act reads as follows :‑ "Employment to which this Act applies.‑This Act shall apply to all employment under the Government or any agency set up by it or a local authority or any service relating to transport or civil defence." Section 3 of the Central Act reads as follows :‑ "Employment to which this Act applies.‑This Act shall apply to all employments under any Government in Pakistan and to any employment or class of employment which the Central Government or a Provincial or State Government being of opinion that such employ ment or class of employment is essential for securing the defence or the security of Pakistan or any part thereof or for the maintenance of supplies or services essential to the life of the community, may, by notification in the official Gazette, declare to be an employment or class of employment to which this Act applies. Thus from the above it is clear that under section 3 of the Provincial Act all employment under the Provincial Government relating to transport or civil defence automatically becomes an essential service, whereas under section 3 of the Central Act if the Government wants to declare a service an essential service, it has to notify it in the official Gazette. In the present case no notification was made declaring the Punjab Road, Transport an essential service. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Provincial Act was applicable and therefore no notifica tion in the official Gazette declaring Punjab Road Transport an essential service was necessary. It was also contended that section 7‑A of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act should be made applicable in the present case in order to oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the industrial dispute. The aforementioned section 7‑A was introduced by Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) (Amendment) Ordinance III of 1965. It reads as follows :‑ "The provisions of this Act shall have effect, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (XVI of 1926) or the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 (LVI of 1959), or any other law." If the Provincial Act is applicable in the present case, then the jurisdic tion of the Labour Court to entertain an industrial dispute is not ousted because there is no such provision like section 7‑A in the Provincial Act. The learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, in my view has blown both hot and cold in the same breath because on the one hand he stated that Provincial Act is applicable and on the other he stated that in order to oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court the provision of section 7‑A of the Central Act be made applicable. This is not possible because only one Act either Central or Provincial will apply. According to him only the Provincial Act is applicable and therefore he cannot import the provisions of Central Act because it is helpful to him. Under the present Constitution mechanically propelled vehicles which include Road Transport have been declared to be in the concurrent list, which means that both Centre and Province can legislate on it. It is well established principle that if both Centre and Province can legislate on an item included in the concurrent list, the Central Act will take precedence over the Provincial Act. In view of the above, I hold that the Central Act would apply to the Road Transport and since no notification in the official Gazette has been made declaring it to be an essential service as required under section 3 of said Act, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to entertain the industrial dispute has not been ousted.

4. In the result I find no merit in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. The record should be sent back to the learned Labour Court for proceeding with the industrial dispute in accordance with law. Appeal dismissed.