1. NAIMUDDIN, J.--The petitioner being the employee of Karachi Electric Supply Corporation, respondent No.2, was served with a charge-sheet, dated 14-9-1977 and was ultimately dismissed from service by the letter, dated 12-6-1980. He, therefore, challenged the conduct of the enquiry by Second Enquiry Officer and the consequent order of dismissal by filing an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance in the Vth Sind Labour Court, Karachi, which was dismissed on the ground that the Court had no jurisdiction in the matter as the employment in respondent No.2 had been declared as essential service.
2. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application with the Chairman, Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad, respondent No.1, who dismissed it by the order, dated 25-9-1980, holding that the enquiry conducted was fair and the petitioner was given every opportunity to defend himself. The petitioner filed an application for review of the order, which was also dismissed by the order, dated 9-11-1980.
3. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged these two orders dated 25-9-1980 and 9-11-1980, in this Constitution Petition praying for declaration that the orders by declared to have been passed without lawful authority and are of no legal effect and for a direction to respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner in the service with all full back benefits.
4. We have heard, Mr. Mamoon Kazi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nizam Ahmad Advocate for respondent No.2.
5. We need not go into the merits of the case as we are of the view that the application filed by the petitioner with respondent No.l1 was not maintainable in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme'; Court in the case of Karachi Electric Supply Corporation v. N.I.R.C. PLD 1982 SC 125 wherein an unreported judgment of this Court in Constitution Petition No.146 of 1980 Pakistan Electrical and Mechanical Constructors Limited v. The Chairman N.I.R.C. And another since reported in NLR 1981 Labour 200 was noticed and approved, wherein the word 'regulate' has been construed as not to include the power to adjudicate a dispute by the specified authority. The Supreme Court in the above-referred case further held that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act (LIII of 1952) being an emergency legislation, excludes the application of other laws providing the forum for resolving disputes between employer and employee arising from violation of terms and conditions of service and as such the Supreme Court held that N.I.R.C. Had no jurisdiction to entertain disputes as to the terms and conditions of service between employee and employer to which the Pakistan Essential Services Act applies. We are, therefore, of the view that the proceedings initiated by the petitioner before N.I.R.C. Were not maintainable and were without jurisdiction and we accordingly declare them to be so.
6. We may however, mention that it was submitted by Mr. Mamoon Kazi that the Supreme Court's judgment delivered on 1-12-1981 would not affect the proceedings taken by the petitioner earlier. In support of the submission, he relied on Muhammad Yousuf v. Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Pakistan Lahore and others PLD 1968 SC 101.
7. In the case relied upon by Mr. Kazi, it was ruled that the question of law decided by the Supreme Court in a case coming up before them for decision did not have effect of altering the law as from its commencement so as to render void of its own force all the relevant orders of the Courts or Tribunals made in the light of the earlier interpretation. But this case has no application to the facts of the present case for the question of jurisdiction of N.I.R.C. To entertain the application filed by the petitioner seeking redress of his individual's grievance, is directly in issue in the present case and we are applying the rule laid down by the supreme Court in Karachi Electric Supply Corporation's case (supra) prospectively and are not giving effect to it retrospectively.
8. The petition is, therefore, disposed of in above terms.