1993 PLP 829 (PLC(CS))

M.L. Shahani and Ch. Latif Saghar for Appellants. Farooq Abdul Ghani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 17th December, 1987. DECISION These are four separate appeals filed by each appellants. Appeal No. 143 of 1987 has been filed against impugned order, dated 5‑4‑1987 passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. IV at Karachi. Appeal No. 158/86 has been filed against the impugned order, dated 3‑5‑1986 passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. II at Karachi. Appeal No. 163/86 has been filed against the impugned order, dated 7‑5‑1986 passed by Sindh Labour Court No. V at Karachi and Appeal No. 239/86 has been filed against the impugned order, dated 4‑8‑1986 passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. V at Karachi. As, a common point of Law was involved in all the grievance petitions of the appellants filed by them under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, therefore, all of them have been dismissed by the respective learned Labour Courts only considering the legal objection raised by the respondent‑Airlines, without going into the merits of each case. In view of this position, I would also dispose of all these four appeals by this single Decision.

2. I have heard Mr. M.L. Shahani, the learned Advocate for appellants; namely, Muhammad Asif Farooqi, S.M. Amin and Abdul Qadeer, while Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned Advocate has submitted his arguments on behalf of appellant Shamim. Khan. I have also heard Mr. Farooq Abdul Ghani, the learned Representative for the respondent‑Airlines and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the cases. Mr. Farooq Abdul Ghani, the learned Representative for the respondent‑Airlines reiterating his arguments which he has submitted before the learned Labour Courts, has also pleaded in these four appeals that by virtue of Sindh Government Gazette Notification; dated 19‑10‑1985, the Government of Sindh was pleased to exempt Saudi Arabian Airlines from all the provisions of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, except section 6 of the said Ordinance, and that since the provisions of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 are not applicable to the respondent‑Airlines, as such, in consequence thereof, the applications under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 filed by the appellants before the learned Labour Court were not legally maintainable. Mr. Farooq Abdul Ghani, the learned representative for the respondent‑Airlines, in support of his \arguments, relying besides on a number of Authorities, has also relied upon a latest decision of the Division Bench of Karachi High Court in the case of Asrar Ahmad Saifie v. Contry Manager, Pakistan Saudi Airlines and another (1987 PLC at page 873) wherein it was held as under:‑‑ "The petitioner was an employee of Saudi Arabian Airlines for 5 years and his services were terminated. If he has any grievance against the termination then he can seek his remedy from any Civil Court in form of suit for compensation or damages. The grievance that the Notification deprives the petitioner of the right to obtain relief from the Labour Court is not justified as section 4 which is statutory provision, allows the Provincial Government to make the exemption as done in the present case. There is no Fundamental Right of seeking relief from the Labour Court itself. The petitioners' right of seeking relief from the Civil Court is open to him. Consequently this petition is found to be not maintainable and is hereby dismissed in limine.

3. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Shahani, the learned Advocate for the appellants has argued that there is a mixed point of law and facts regarding the unfair Labour Practice in which the Labour Court had concurrent jurisdiction. I see no force in this contention of either Mr. M.L. Shahani or Mr. Latif Saghar, the learned Advocates for the appellants.

4. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders and would maintain the same, I would, therefore, dismiss all these four appeals only on the point that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction in these cases. M.Y.H./1170/Lb.S Appeals dismissed.