OR DER ' There are the four appeals Nos, KAR-657, 658, 659 and HYD-660 of 1983, filed by the respective appellants, the first three against the common order, dated 3rd November, 1983, passed by the Sind Labour Court No, V at Karachi, and the fourth against the order, dated 7th December, 1983 passed by the VIth Labour Court at Hyderabad, dismissing their applications filed under section 25- A, I. R.
0., on a short ground that their employment was declared as Essential Service under section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952.
2. The facts briefly are that the appellants were serving in the respondent organization, Union Texas Pakistan Inc., an Oil and Gas company. Their services were terminated of the first three appellants on 20th March, 1983 whereas that of the fourth appellant Naseer Ahmed on 21st January, 1983. By a notification, dated 2nd September, 1983, issued by the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, which was extended from time to time, all classes of employment under the Oil and Gas Organizations except employment under the Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd., were declared to be an Essential Services under section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The respondent organization made a reference to the relevant Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan for a clarification as to whether their organization would be covered up by the above notification. The Ministry of Petroleum and Resources by its letter, dated 10th July, 1983, on the basis of communication, received from the Ministry of Labour clarified that since the respondent organization was engaged in petroleum explosion and development in Khaskheli in Badin District, Sind it was ipso ,facto covered up by the above-mentioned Notification issued under section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Miantenance) Act, 1952, by the Government of Pakistan. The legal objection to that effect was raised on behalf of the respondent organization before the learned Labour Courts contending that the application filed under section 25-A, I. R.
0., by the present appellants were not legally maintainable, since their service was declared essential within the meaning of the above Notification.
3. I have heard Mr. Choudhry Rasheed Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellants. It is admitted by him that on the date the service of the appellants were terminated, the Notification issued under section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, extended from time to time, was in operation. The only contention raised by him is that the respondent organization would not be covered up by the Notification issued under section 3 of the Essential Services Act as it is not specifically mentioned therein. What I find that the clarification, dated 10th July, 1983, issued by the relevant Ministry of Petroleum and. Natural Resources, Government of Pakistan on the basis of the communication received from the Ministry of Labour has clarified that since the respondent organization is a company engaged in Petroleum and development at Khaskheli in Badin District Sind, it was an oil and gas organization and would ipso facto to be covered up by the Notification issued by the Government of Pakistan under section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. Mr. Choudhry Rasheed Ahmed has contended that the clarification should have been issued by the Ministry of Interior, and was, therefore, not from a lawful authority. In my view, his contention has no force for the simple reason that the issue raised by him is beyond the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts and this Tribunal to decide. It is clear to me that the employment under the respondent organization is declared essential service and the jurisdiction of the Labour Courts in the matter is barred. The learned Labour Courts, therefore, have rightly decided that the grievance petitions filed by the appellant were not legally maintainable and the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants has no force in that respect.
4. The result is that the four, appeals are dismissed summarily.