Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD AFSAR VS Respondent: KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI
1988 P L C 321
1988 P L C 321
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind)
Present: Ali Namaz Budhani, Appellate Tribunal
MUHAMMAD AFSAR and another Versus KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION, KARACHI
Appeal Nos. KAR‑8 and 17 of 1987, decided on 12th April, 1987.
West Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (XXXIV of 1958)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.5‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 25‑A & 38(3)‑‑Grievance petition‑‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court‑‑Application of Sind Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958‑‑Effect‑‑Petition of employee of Sind Transport Corporation dismissed by Labour Court on legal objection that Sind Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958 was applicable‑‑Order of Labour Court was set aside by Appellate Tribunal and case was remanded for decision on merits.
Muhammad Ashraf Khan for Appellants. Azmatullah Khan for Respondent. Date of hearing: 12th April 1987.
DECISION These are two appeals filed by the appellants against the two separate impugned orders, dated 10‑1‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petitions of the appellants, under section 25‑A I. R.O. 1969, in view of the legal objections submitted by the respondent corporation.
2. Brief facts of both these appeals are that both the appellants had submitted their separate grievance petition, under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, challenging their dismissal from service on the alleged charge of misconduct. The respondent Corporation, instead of contesting the petitions on merits, had challenged the maintainability of the petitions on the legal grounds, that as the Sind Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958 was applicable on the employment of the respondent Corporation, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance petition of a worker under section 25‑A, I.R.0,1969 and to adjudicate upon his grievance.
3. The learned Labour Court, after hearing the parties on this legal point, had passed the impugned order, hence, this appeal As in both these appeals, a common legal point is involved therefore, I would decide both these appeals by this single Decision.
4. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Ashraf the learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. Azmatullah Khan, the learned representative on behalf of the respondent Corporation and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case. In view of my findings and observations in appeals Nos. Kar. 347 to 358 of 1986, vide, Decision, dated 19‑2‑1987/6‑4‑1987, I would set aside the present two impugned orders and allow these appeals. I would, therefore, remand both these cases to the concerned Labour Court to decide the cased on their own merits, within two months of this Decision. 6. Order accordingly.
A.E./1057/Lb.S Case remanded