' HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J.---Facts leading to this Labour appeal are that the appellant joined Lahore Development Authority as Junior clerk and during the performance of his duties he was served with a show-cause notice on 18.2.2003 under the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service ,(Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000 he refuted the allegations. However, the Authority vide order dated 24.3.2003 dismissed the appellant from service and that too under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2001 which caused a grievance to the petitioner who invoked the jurisdiction of Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore through a petition under section 46 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 and requested for setting aside of the dismissal order dated 24.3.2003 and for his reinstatement with all back benefits. The learned Labour Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the appellant's petition through judgment dated 27.10.2004 in the following terms:- ' "This petition is not of any justification and the allegation of bungling in the files having been proved is of no further justification and is hereby dismissed:
2. Aggrieved by this decision of the learned Labour Court dated 27.10.2004 the appellant has filed this Labour appeal and the learned counsel for the appellant argued the case at length and submits with vehemence that false allegations were levelled against the appellant and without holding regular inquiry the appellant was dismissed from service, which cannot hold field on the sole ground that if the allegations are disputed/refuted then without resorting to the procedure of regular inquiry dismissal cannot he ordered. Further submits that the, learned Labour Court did not advert to the evidence on record, did not apply its independent mind particularly to the point that show-cause notice dated 18.2.2003 was in fact barred by time as under Standing Order 15(4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 the show-cause notice should have been served on the appellant within one month from the date of alleged misconduct so the structure based on time-barred show-cause notice cannot hold the field.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the LDA supports the impugned judgment reiterates his objections, which were raised before the learned Labour Court with particularity of the jurisdiction of the Punjab Labour Court referring para. A of reply to the petition under section 46 of the Industrial.Relations Ordinance., 2002.
4. In rebuttal the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant could not he proceeded against under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000/2001 as the appellant was and is a workman by nature of his duties and does not fall within the definition of civil servant, thus the Ordinance of 2000/2001 being not applicable to the employees of the L.D.A.
Was wrongly applied.
5. Arguments heard: record, perused.
6. There are certain facts, which are not denied even today:
(i) The appellant was an employee of L.D.A. Which is created under an Act.
(ii) The appellant was served with a show-cause notice under The provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000/2001.
(iii) LDA specifically raised an objection in writing before the learned- Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore in respect of jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court.
7. The foremost point in the present case is that whether the appellant rightly invoked the jurisdiction of Punjab Labour Court for the redressal of his grievance despite specific ,provisions of the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance. 2000 or not?
8. To resolve the present controversy it shall be advantageous to reproduce the dismissal order, which is as under-- ' "Consequent upon finalization of the disciplinary proceedings' vide No, LDA/DDA-III-3497/107, dated 24.3.2003 initiated against Mr. Anwar Masih son of Siraj Masih, Junior Clerk (Employee Code No, 1)
Chairman's Head Quarter Branch, LDA vide Show-Cause Notice No, LDA/DDA-III/3497/055, dated 18.2.2003, he is hereby awarded major penalty of dismissal from service under the Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 with immediate effect."
9. When language of the dismissal order is so clear then I have to advert to the specific provisions of the Ordinance, ibid.
10. According to section 1(4) the application of the said Ordinance is explained in the following terms:- "It shall apply to persons in Government service and Corporation service."
10A. According to section 2(c) the person in Corporation service is defined asunder:-- ' "Person in corporation service" means every person in the employment of corporation, corporate body, authority, statutory body or other organization of institution set up, established, owned, managed or controlled by the Punjab Government, or by or under any law for the time being in force or a body of organization in which the Punjab Government has a controlling share or interest and includes the Chairman and the Managing Director, and the holder of another office therein."
11. Undisputedly the appellant falls within the definition of person in corporation service and as such the Ordinance is applicable to the appellant as per provisions of section 1(4) of the Ordinance.
12. It is well-settled law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in a number of cases that "if law requires to do a thing in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner only and not otherwise."
13. In the present case the appellant was served with a show-cause notice and then was dismissed from service under the provisions of Punjab Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000/2001, the appellant was provided a forum for the redressal of his grievance in the form of section 10 of the Ordinance (ibid), which is as follows:-- ' "Appeal.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, any person aggrieved by any final order under section 9 may, within thirty days from the date of confirmation of the order, prefer an appeal to the Punjab Service Tribunal established under the Punjab Service Tribunals Act, 1974 (IX of 1974): [Provided that if a decision on a representation or review petition under section 9 is not received within a period of sixty days, the affected person may file an appeal under this section within a period of thirty days of the expiry of the aforesaid period]."
14. If the provisions mentioned above are put in juxta position to the appellant's petition before the learned Labour Court, it shall be crystal clear that the appellant wrongly approached the learned Labour Court, despite the fact that the appellant had a remedy before the Punjab Service Tribunal, which he did not avail rather approached a wrong forum and as such this appeal arising out of a judgment of a Court having no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter, cannot proceed further.
However, the appellant is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum if he so advises.
' This Labour appeal is accordingly dismissed.