' These are the three grievance petitions under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 filed by the petitioners who are working as Chowkidar, Fork Lift-operator and Bearer in the Organisation.
2. Briefly the facts giving rise to these grievances are that they had been working in the Organisation since November, 1981 and about October, 1979, respectively. They continued to serve the respondents to the utmost satisfaction of their superiors. It is alleged by the petitioners that their services were suddenly terminated on 20-3-1983 by one and the same order Annexure 1/A.
The petitioners then served the respondents with grievance notices under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 on 25-5-1983, 13-6-1983, 13-6-1983, respectively. These notices were replied to by the G.M. Of the respondent-Organisation. Finding no satisfactory result the petitioners have approached this Court by way of these grievance petitions on 6-8-1983, 25-8-1983 and 25-8-1983, respectively.
3. The respondent right at the outset have challenged the jurisdiction of this Court to adjudicate upon these petitions and have filed such legal objections on 15-9-1983. It has been reiterated in the objections filed that in view of a settled position of law the services of the respondent-Organisation are under Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 hence this Court cannot adjudicate the matters therefore The petitions are not maintainable at law and liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. I have also perused the notifications issued by the Federal Government dated 2-9-1982 and 8-3-1983 and other documents filed by the respondents.
5. In view of these notifications and the letter by the Deputy Director of Natural Resources, Directorate-General of Petroleum Concessions, Islamabad dated 10-7-1983 it seems crystral clear that the employment in the respondent-Organisation has been declared as Essential Services within the meaning of section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a D.B. Decision reported in the case of Aqeel Ahmad Ansari v. P.I.A. Corporation and 2 others 1982 PLC 1023 which was decided on 23-2-1982 wherein it has been held that the Labour Court has jurisdiction and the case was remanded to the Labour Court for trial. The learned counsel stressed that in view of this authority this Court will have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the individual grievance petitions.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has lost sight of the authority reported in 1983 PLC 16. This is an authority of Hon'ble High Court Karachi Bench by the same Hon'ble Judges on 1-4-1982 whereby the earlier authority reported in 1982 PLC 1023 has been ruled out and the orders passed by the Labour Court and Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal hold that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction, has been upheld. Hence the result of this authority would be that in such matters, where the employment is governed by the Essential Services Act the Labour Court will have no jurisdiction.
7. There is yet another latest unreported authority given by then Hon'ble Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi on 31-10-1983 in Abdur Rehman v. Messrs Esso Eastern Inc. Appeal No.KAR.157/1983 wherein it has been finally settled that where the services of an employee is governed by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 by virtue of section 3 of the said Act the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a grievance petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969.
8. Consequently, the contentions by the learned counsel for the petitioners have no force and I have no reason to disagree with the learned counsel for the respondent that this Court lacks in the jurisdiction in these matters.
9. In view of my discussions in above paras. 5, 6 and 7 I am of a clear view that the services of the petitioners being governed by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 this Court has no jurisdiction hence these petitions merit no consideration and are liable to be dismissed, so I order accordingly.