' This appeal arises from the decision, dated 14th September, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi; whereby the respondent was directed to be re- instated in service without back benefits.
2. The allegation against the respondent was that he had wilfully damaged the Face Mill. It is said that the screw of the cutter was loose which was in the knowledge of the respondent yet he did not tighten it. This could not establish with certainty that the screw was loose. If the screw had been found loose by some person, he would have set it right. There may be some other reasons for the cutter could be damaged. Every implement has some duration of life and has to yield one day.
Again if there are manifestly defects in a thing, it can give way before its normal life. There is no evidence for how long the cutter was in use and normally what is its life.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that since Essential Services (Maintenance) Act applies to the appellant, the Labour Courts have no jurisdiction. This argument too is without force. The N. I. R. C. Framed rules and provided that it was the forum to adjudicate upon the grievances of the employer and the worker. The Supreme Court has in PLD 1982 SC 113 observed that the powers to regulate does not include to adjudicate and held that N. I. R. C. Had no jurisdiction to decide the case of dismissal and termination of services. Since there is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact whether the appellant is not covered by the definition of 'industrial establishment' as defined in section 2 (f) of Standing Orders Ordinance and 'industry' as defined in section 2 (xiv) of the `industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the labour laws are applicable B to the appellant. This is not the case of the appellant that the respondent is not a workman, so only the Labour Court has jurisdiction.