ASHRAF ARIF KHAN Versus PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 27‑8‑1984 passed by the Sind Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.0.1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was Pmplnv#1d in the respondent Airlines as Traffic Assistant and that he was charged with the misconduct that he had realised an amount of Rs.200 from one passenger as Excess Baggage Charge, but no Baggage ticket was issued to him. Thereafter, on 12‑12‑1983, the appellant was dismissed from services and being aggrieved of this dismissal order, the appellant had submitted his grievance petition before the Labour Court.

3. The respondent establishment resisted the petition mainly on the legal objection that in view of Martial Law Regulation No.52, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to decide the question of reinstatement of an employee/ workman of the respondent Corporation, namely, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, hence same was liable to be dismissed on this score only.

4. I have heard Mr. Abdul Majeed learned Counsel for the representative Mr. Asmatullah Khan, Law Officer of the respondent Airlines and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. Azmatullah Khan in support of his pleadings that the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain a petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969, of an employee/worker of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation because the provisions of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 as well as Martial Law Regulation 52 were very well‑applicable to the employment of the Airlines, has relied upon (1) P L D 1980 S C 113, (K.E.S.C. Ltd. v. N.I.R.C.); (2) 1983 P L C 308 (Ziaul Hasan Tirmizi v. P. I. A. C.); 1983 P L C 55 (Shahid Javed v. P.I.A.C.) and (4) and a Judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Syed Jawar Hussain Shah v. P.I.A. passed on 31‑10‑1983. Mr. Abdul Majeed, on the other hand has not submitted any authority contrary to the above authorities I, therefore, hold that the appellant has no case, thus, the learned Labour Court has rightly dismissed his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R. O., 1969, as not legally maintainable.

5. For the above reasons, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

A.E. /963/ Lb.S.

Appeal dismissed.