' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 10th May, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore, dismissing the grievance petition of the appellant on the ground that Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1952 being applicable to him, the Labour Courts had no jurisdiction. Reliance has been placed upon PLD 1982 SC 125. The Supreme Court has in the said ruling held that a dismissed person has remedy under section 7 of the Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1952 read with rule 3 of Essential Services Rules. The observations made by the Supreme Court are reproduced as under :- "Section 5 deals with the cessation of employment either at the behest of the employer or the employee. It would thus include termination of service according to the terms and conditions, discharge, dismissal, absence or abandonment and retrenchment. The direction issued in terms of rule 3 (2) (d) concerning the termination of employment will also be covered in view of the wide and all embracing language of this section. Any discontinuance of employment has necessarily to be judged from the test laid down in the section namely, that it was without reasonable excuse".
Therefore, if the respondents felt aggrieved either by their termination of service or dismissal, they should have taken steps to institute the proceedings as provided by section 7 and in that event it would have been open to the Court to determine as to whether the termination, according to the terms and conditions of service, or by way of dismissal or discharge was without lawful excuse or not as the expression "without reasonable excuse" signifies an excuse which is not lawful."
' The learned counsel for the respondent has cited on the contrary 1983 PLC 16, 1983 PLC 780 and 1984 PLC (C. S.) 325. The first mentioned ruling 1983 P L C16 goes against the respondent. In this ruling PLC 1982 SC 125, PLD 1982 SC 113 has been followed. In 1983 PLC 780 to the Supreme Court ruling has been followed. So far as 1984 PLC (C. S.) 325 is concerned, it was delivered before PLD 1982 SC 113 came in the field, in which contrary view has been taken, so it cannot be followed. As held by the Supreme Court, Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1952, being special law, it excludes the other forums provided by other law and the only forum that will be competent to deal with the case of cessation of service on any ground whatsoever is the one provided by the said Act in its section 7. Learned lower Court thus rightly held that the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction. It has not been argued that Essential Services Maintenance Act is not applicable to the respondent establishment.
2. As a result of what has been observed above, the appeal fails and is thus hereby dismissed.