MUHAMMAD ISMAIL Versus Messrs SECURITY PAPERS LTD

DECISION

This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 20‑4‑1986, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.IV , Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant, under section 25‑A, I. R.O. , 1969.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a permanent workman of the respondent Establishment and that on 5‑10‑1985, he was charge‑sheeted regarding misconduct' and as his reply to the same was not found satisfactory, therefore, an enquiry was conducted and subsequently he was dismissed from service on 17‑11‑1985. Thereafter, the appellant filed his grievance petition before the learned Labour Court. '

3. The respondent Establishment resisted the petition mainly on the‑ legal objection that as the provisions of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, were applicable to the employment of the respondent Establishment at the relevant time.... therefore, the grievance petition of the appellant was not legally maintainable before the Labour Court for want of jurisdiction, so it was liable to be dismissed.

4. As, the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order mainly on the pleadings of legal objections by both the parties, instead of the merits of the case, therefore, I have heard Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned Advocate for the appellant and Mrs. Majida Rizvi , the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Establishment. It is contended by Mrs. Majida Rizvi , the learned counsel for the respondent Establishment that there were Notifications of different dates making application of the provisions of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 on the employments under the Pakistan Security Printing Corporation and Security Papers Limited Karachi and lastly it was extended for six months commencing on 27‑8‑1985 and when, the cause of action actually secured to the appellant, these provisions were well in application on the employments of the respondent Establishment. Therefore, in view of this factual and legal position, the jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court was ousted and the learned Labour Court was quite right in dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant. In support of her contentions, the learned counsel has relied upon an authority of the Supreme Court, reported in P L D 1982 S C at page 125.

5.On the other hand, the contentions of Mr. Khalid Javed, the learned Advocate for the appellant that when the grievance notice was given by the appellant, the provisions of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, were not applicable to the employment of the respondent Establishment, are incorrect. Notice of grievance is simply the procedural observance for going to the Labour Court to seek the relief. But, the cause of action actually arose to the appellant, when the charge‑sheet was delivered to the appellant, and on this date, the admitted position was that the provisions of

Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, were applicable to the employments of the respondent Establishment. In view of this position, I would hold that the learned Labour Court was quite correct in dismissing the grievance, petition of thg appellant. ,

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and would dismiss the present appeal.

A. E. /1071/Lb.S Appeal dismissed