' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.---Petitioner No,1 is Chairman of the Collective Bargaining Agent of the respondent Karachi Electric Supply Company. Through this petition petitioners have, challenged the order dated 19-1-2011 vide which the Chief Executive Officer/Management decided to retrench the services of various class of employees inter alia on the ground and in terms as follows:- "Since the company's privatization in general and the last Two (2) years in particular, the management took a serious note of its colossal financial losses impacting its financial health concluding that over-staffing, duplication of work, overlapping and redundant non-core job roles/positions are a substantial contributory factor to the financial ill-health of the company. The company has man power on its strength whose nature of work has become obsolete, redundant and surplus.
' As a starting point to address the aforementioned issues in its non-core, non-management job roles/position the company evaluated the option of obliterating of obsolete job roles/position and outsourcing these job roles/position which are handled effectively by such full complement service providers from the standpoint of efficiency and cost effectiveness."
2. The said order, according to petitioners, was withdrawn vide the order dated 23-1-2011, which reads as follows:- "A meeting was held in the Governor House, Karachi under the co-chairmanship of the Governor Sindh, Dr. Lshrat ul Ebad Khan and the Chief Minister Sindh, Syed Qaim All Shah to resolve the matter of removal of employees of KESC. Three member Federal Government Committee comprising Federal Minister for Water and Power, Raja Parvez Ashraf, Federal Minister for Labour, Syed Khurshed Shah and Senator Mian Raza Rabbani, Advisor to the Prime Minister of Pakistan for Inter Provincial Coordination were present besides, Dr. Farooq Sattar, Member National Assembly of Pakistan and Sindh Provincial Minister for Health, Dr. Sagheer Ahmed also attended the meeting.
' On the specific directives of the Committee the order dated January 19th, 2011 of the retrenchment issued to the affected KESC employees is hereby withdrawn."
3. The case of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the afore-referred withdrawal, the respondent Organization, is terminating services of various employees, which is not tenable.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to a judgment of this Court in AIR League of PIAC Employees v. Federation of Pakistan (2011 SCM R 1254) wherein at page 1275, this Court addressing the issue of dispensation after devolution observed as follows:-- <>i<"23. On the question of remedy before the NIRC, which was provided in terms of section 25 of the IRA, 2008 it is to be noted that the provision of NIRC was added for the first time in 1972 by making amendment in the IRO, 1969 by means of Ordinance IX of 1972 whereby section 22A was inserted. The same was provided in IRO, 2002 and IRA, 2008. Now, in the Province of Punjab, by means of section 47 of the PIRA, 2010 remedy has been provided before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. Similarly, in the Province of Balochistan, under section 25 of the BIRA, 2010 remedy before the Industrial Relations Commission and in the Province of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, in terms of sections 48 and 51 of KIRO, 2010 the remedy of appeal has been provided before the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal. In the Province of Sindh, as the IRA, 2008 has been revived, therefore, in terms section 25 of the same, the provision of NIRC has been continued. In the present circumstances, after the promulgation of provincial laws dealing with the Industrial disputes, the persons having any grievance can approach the appropriate forum provided under the respective provincial laws.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after the devolution of subjects/Departments pursuant to the 18th Amendment in the Constitution in Province of Sindh, the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 stands revived and in terms of the said law, it is the National Industrial Relations Commission, which has jurisdiction to entertain grievance petition of the petitioners but as per his instructions the Commission is not entertaining such petitions. He adds that if this petition is disposed of with the observation that NIRC should entertain and decide the petitions, he would not press this petition any further.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the judgment of this Court in AIR League supra, we find that the request being made is reasonable. 'Since the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 stands revived by virtue of the Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment)
Act, 2010 (Act XV of 2010) (Section 1 of subsection (3)), let the petitioners file appropriate petitions before a forum envisaged under the said law and we are sanguine the same shall be decided expeditiously and strictly in terms as mandated in law.