' NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.-Respondent No, 1 is an employee of the petitioner Company. Respondent No, 2 is National Industrial Relations Commission. The provisions of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 were applicable to all kinds of employment in the petitioner-Company at the relevant time. The specified authority under the Act of 1952, that is, respondent No, 2 issued directions for regulating the terms and conditions of service in the petitioner-Company. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the petitioner Company in consultation with the union formulated a promotion policy. Respondent No, 1 represented that he should be promoted to Grade-IV, as he had completed 4 years in Grade-III. This request was not accepted by the petitioner-Company on the ground that respondent No, 1 was not entitled to promotion under the new agreed promotion policy. Being aggrieved, the respondent No, 1 filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Labour Court but the same was dismissed on 7th October, 1979. Respondent No, 1 then filed an appeal against the order of the Labour Court but the same was dismissed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal on 4th December, 1979 on the ground of jurisdiction. In these circumstances, in December, 1979, respondent No, 1 filed individual grievance petition before respondent No, 2 praying for promotion to Grade-IV. A direction/ judgment, dated 16th March, 1980 was given by respondent No, 2, wherin it had been held that respondent No, 1 is entitled to promotion to next grade. This direction/Judgment had been published in the Gazette of Pakistan, Extraordinary, dated 11th May, 1980. The Judgment direction, dated 16th March, 1980 is impugned in this constitutional petition. We have heard Mr. S. A. Sarwana, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. M. L. Shahani, learned counsel for the respondent No, 1, has stated no instructions. Mr. S. A. Sarwana states that in fact respondent No, 1 has written a letter, dated 18th October, 1980 to the Managing Director of the petitioner-Company that he is no longer interested in the prosecution of this case and that is why he is instructing his Advocate not to contest this petition in the High Court. A photostat copy of this letter has been placed on record of this case.
2. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited v. N.I.R.C. we had allowed a similar petition being Constitutional Petition No, D- 545/ 80. It also had been filed by the petitioner-Company but in respect of another employee who had claimed promotion. In PLD 1982 SC 125, the Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that the provisions of the 1952 Act do not give any power to specified authority to adjudicate a dispute between the employer and the employee. In the instant case what the specified authority (respondent No, 2) has done is that it has adjudicated a dispute between respondent No, 1 and his employer that is the petitioner-Company and this power the respondent No, 2 Commission did not have. The Judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in PLD 1982 SC 125 supports the case of the petitioner that respondent No, 2 Commission had no power or jurisdiction to entertain the individual grievance petition of respondent No, 1.
3. As a result, Constitutional Petition No, D-1171 of 1980 is allowed to the extent that a declaration is granted that the direction/judgment, dated 16th March, 1980 given by respondent No, 2 Commission granting the individual grievance petition of respondent No, 1 is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There will be no order as to costs. PLD 1982 SC 125