' This appeal is directed against the order, dated 3rd April, 1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No, V, Karachi, dismissing the application of the appellant filed under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969.
2. The brief facts leading up to the appeal are that the appellant was employed with the respondents as an Assistant since 1976. His services were terminated vide order, dated 12th October, 1982. He served a grievance notice on the respondent and his grievance having not been redressed, he filed an application under section 25-A, I. R.
0., which was dismissed as stated above on a short ground that the employment in the respondent-Company was declared as an Essential Services within the meaning of section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts was barred. Aggrieved by the order of his termination of services the appellant has come up in this appeal.
3. I have beard the learned Advocate of the parties Mr. Junaid Farooqi for the appellant and Mr. Abdul Hafeez for the respondents and have also persued the material evidence and documents available on the record. In view of the Notification Nos. SRO-211 (1)/82, dated 4th March, 1982, and S. R. O.-841(1)/82, dated 2nd September, 1982, notified in the Government Gazette of Pakistan, dated 4th March, 1982, and 2nd September, 1982, respectively, which are on the record, there is no dispute that the employment in the respondent-Company were declared as Essential Services within the meaning of section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. In view of the situation,' Mr. Junaid Farooqi appearing on behalf of the appellant relying on the majority view of the Full Bench decision of the Sind High Court in the case of Pakistan Burmah-Shell Ltd. v. Central Labour Commissioner and 5 others , decided on 3rd June, 1980, contended that he inapplicability of the provisions of the other Acts was only to the extent of inconsistency between the Acts and Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. He, therefore, contended that the provisions of section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, have no effect of total exclusion of the forum of the Labour Courts. On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Hafeez appearing on behalf of the respondents has disputed the above proposition relying on the authority of the Supreme Court in the case of K. E. S. C. Ltd. v. N.1. R. C. And another , decided on 1st December, 1981 wherein the Honourable Supreme Court observed that "whereas Statute provides a forum for dealing with the violation no other authority can be substituted for it, the moreso when the Act is an emer- gency legislation and has taken care to exclude the application of other laws which provides a forum for resolving the dispute between the employer and the employee, arising from the violation of the terms and conditions of service and further that section 5 deals with the cessation of employment either at the behest of the employers or the employee." This authority of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed by the Division Bench of the Sind High Court in the case of Khuda Bux v. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation and others , wherein it was held that "in view of the express observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the above K. E. S. C's case, particularly with reference to the aforesaid Lahore's case of 1977, and Peshawar case of 1980 to the effect that no forum can resolve the dispute between the employer and the employee than the forum provided by the Act, it is not open to the Court to hold otherwise." It would, therefore, appear that the view taken by the Supreme Court is that a person whose employment is regulated by the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, if he is aggrieved by the termination of his services for whatever cause or whatever manner can have resort only to the forum and according to the procedure provided in the said Act and no other remedy or in no other manner. I would, therefore, find that the contention raised by Mr. Junaid Farooqi appearing on behalf of the appellant to the effect that the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court have got no effect of total exclusion of the forum of the Labour Courts does not appear to be sound. I would accordingly concur with the view taken by the learned Labour Court, that the employment of the respondents having been declared as Essential Services within the meaning of section 5 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, it bad no jurisdiction by virtue of section 7-A of the Act, to entertain and adjudicate upon the application filed under section 25-A, I. R.
0., 1969, by the appellant.
4. For the above reasons, I find no merit in the appeal and it is PLD 1982 Kar. 33 PLD 1982 SC 113 1983 PLC 16