1976 PLP 917 (PLC)

Petitioner in person. Naeern Bokhari for Respondent. The Tarbela Joint Venture has been declared as an Essential Service under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The Chairman, NIRC or a Member of the Commission authorised by the Chairman has been declared under section 6 of the Act a9 an Authority for regulating the wages and other conditions of service of persons engaged in as Essential Services S. M. Zamir Alam was employed by the TJV. His Services were terminated on 12- -74. On 29-8-74 be approached the Chairman, NIRC as an authority under the Pakistan. Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 for his re-instatement with full back benefits on the ground that his services had been illegally terminated. The Chairman authorised Mr. `'' Bashir Ahmed Malik, Member of the Commission to deal with the case. She learned Member after proper trial by his order dated 6-1-75 held that the services of the petitioner had been illegally terminated and ordered him to be re-instated with effect from 12-8-74 with full back benefits. This order was however, not announced to the parties but was sent to the Interior Ministry on 26-4-75 for publication in the official Gazette. It was published in the Gazette of Pakistan Extraordinary dated, 3-1-76. As a result of the above order the petitioner S. M. Zamir Alam was re-instated on 27-1-76 with effect from 12-8-74, the date of termination of his services. He was also paid all his dues so far as the pay and allowances were concerned. At the time of termination of his services, the petitioner was in occupation of residential accommodation provided by the TJV and he bad to vacate the accommodation on the termination of his services. On his re-instatement, he was, however, not paid anything in lieu of the accommodation for the period from 12-8-74 to 27-1-76 and even after 27-1-76 up to 10-2-76 when he was again retrenched. On 27-3-76 be submitted the present application under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (maintenance) Act, 1952 for a direction to be issued that he was entitled to an allowance equal to 3 times the wages of his last working day, for the period from 12-8-74 to 10-2-76 in view of Section 16 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The contention of the respondent, on the other hand, was that the petition was for the recovery of alleged arrears and that the Authority under the Essential Services Act had not powers of execution of its order. It was also alleged that the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 had no application to the case and that, at any rate, according to the Standing Orders Ordinance the petitioner was entitled to allowances in lieu of accommodation for the ` period after re-instatement only. The petitioner in person and Mr. Naeem Bokhari, Advocate for the respon dent heard and papers thoroughly persued. The petition, on the face of it, is not for execution of any order but is for issuing direction to the effect that the petitioner was entitled to allowances in lieu of accommodation for the period from 12-8-74 to 1 0-2-76 in view of the Standing Order

16. There is, therefore, no force in the contention of the respondent that Chairman had no jurisdiction in the matter. The learned Counsel for the respondent conceded that the petitioner was entitled to the said allowance from 27-1-76 the actual date of his re-instatement up to 10-2-76, the date of his second retrenchment but he was not entitled to any allowance for the period from 12-8-74 to 27-I-76. lie also contended that in view of the fact that the TJV was cover-d by the "Pakistan Essential Service (Maintenance) Act, 1952" the "West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968", did not apply to it. There is no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. According to section 7-A of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 those provisions of other laws shall not have effect which are contrary to the provisions of the said Act. Standing Order 16 is not in any) way contrary to the provisions of the Act and it has, therefore, to be applied to the case of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the learned Counsel himself admitted that the, respondent was prepared to pay the petitioner according to Standing Order 16 for the period 27-1-76 to 10-2-76 which meant that toe respondent admitted the application of Standing Order

16. So far as the period is concerned the learned Member in his order has held the petitioner entitled to full back benefits from the date of his re-instatement viz. 12-8-74 and under the circumstances the petitioner was, therefore, entitled to compensation in respect of the accommodation for the whole of the period from 12-8-74 to 10-2-76. A direction in the above term is, therefore, hereby, issued which should be sent to the Interior Ministry at once for publication.