1983 PLP 3124 (CLC)

‑‑ Art. 9‑Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952), Ss. 5, 6 & 7 and Federal Government Notification No. SRO‑955(t)176, dated 25th September, 1976‑Every authority or functionary empowered to act under provisions of Statute or Rules framed there under, held, is expected to know its statutory duties Deputy Commissioner impleaded as party not filing any counter affidavit to deny assertion of petitioner and no stay order having been issued in case restraining him from taking further steps Prayer for issuing direction by High Court to Deputy Commissioner for taking action in matter not granted. ‑ Petitioner in person: S. M. Noorul Hassan for Respondent No.

8. Date of hearing : 21st February, 1983. SAJJAD ALI SHAH, J.‑By this petition is called in question dismissal of petitioner and six other workers by respondent No. 8 i. e. K.E. S. C. under the provisions of Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952.

2. Briefly stated the relevant facts are that the petitioner was work ing in K. E. S. C. as Boiler Operator at Korangi Thermal Power Station and he was asked to work on the Boiler but he refused on the ground that there was no such order in respect of him' in writing. He was charge sheeted for wilful insubordination. Show‑cause notice was also issued to him and ultimately at the end of an inquiry he was dismissed from service. Petitioner filed an application under section 6 of the Essential Services Act before the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Com mission (NIRC) and the said application was allowed vide order dated 30th March, 1981 passed by the Chairman, whereby petitioner was directed to be re‑instated in service with back benefits. Respondent No. 8 filed Constitutional Petition No. D‑397/ 81 being aggrieved against the order passed by the Chairman N.I.R.C. and in that petition the present petitioner was impleaded as respondent No. 2 and that petition has been allowed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order, dated 13th October, 1981 certified photostat copy of which is on the record of this petition. It is held by the Division Bench of the Court in that petition that Chair man N.I.R.C. could not adjudicate upon a dispute of an individual work man under section 6 of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and for that proposition reliance was placed on the decision of Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pakistan Burmah Shell v. Central Labour Commissioner and 5 others P L D 1981 Kar.

33. Petitioner before us who was respondent No. 2 in that petition did not file appeal in the Supreme Court as such the decision given by Division Bench has become final. Additionally, Mr. Noorul Hassan, Advocate for respondents has drawn our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of KESC v. NIRC and another P L D 1982 S C 113 in which it is laid down that under section 6 of the said Act the specified authority has no power to adjudicate upon an individual dispute between an employer and an employee.

3. We have heard the petitioner who is unrepresentative and appeared in person and Mr. Noorul Hassan, counsel for the respondents. Petitioner has conceded to the legal position enunicated in the decisions mentioned above and has stated that he does not press first three prayers made by him in the memorandum of petition: It may be pointed out that his first prayer is with regard to a declaration to be obtained from this Court to the effect that discontinuation of service of petitioner and six other co‑workers was without reasonable excuse and was an offence under section 5 of the said Act. His second prayer is to the effect that this Court may direct respondent No. 8 to treat the affected workers in regular employment. His third prayer is that respondent No. 8 be directed to pay outstanding dues to the workers. His fourth prayer is that this Court may issue a direction to respondent No. 1, who is Deputy Com missioner East, Karachi, to exercise his powers conferred upon him by the Federal Government ‑ride Notification No. SR‑955(1)/711, dated 25th September, 1976 in respondent of discontinuation of service.

4. In other words petitioner has stated that he does not press the other three prayers in the memorandum of petition but since he has already taken steps to avail the remedy open to him under sections 5 and 7 of the said Act and has filed a complaint with respondent No. 1 who authorised by the Gazette Notification mentioned above, he should best directed to take further steps in the matter. Since other prayers in the petitioner are not being pressed by the petitioner we do not find it expe dient to issue a direction to respondent No. 1 as sought by the peti tioner because every authority or functionary empowered to act under the provisions of Statute or Rules framed there under is expected to know his statutory duties. Deputy Commissioner East is impleaded as respondent No. 1 in this petition and he has not filed any counter‑affidavit from which an inference can be drawn that he does not deny the assertion of the petitioner that a complaint has been filed with him by the petitioner. There is no stay order in this petition restraining the respondent No. 1 from taking further steps. No ground is made out for interference and we dismiss this petition with no order as to costs. However, we trust that respondent No. I would expeditiously take steps strictly according to law. M. Y. H. Petition dismissed.