MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.-- The petitioner was employed with Messrs Esso Eastern Inc.
Respondent No.1. His services were terminated on 12-10-1982 on the basis of misconduct. The petitioner served the respondent with legal notice and thereafter he filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the Sind Labour Court Karachi for re- instatement in service with full back benefits. The learned Labour Court dismissed the application on the ground that the provisions of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act LIII of p. 952, and it is admitted fact that section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969 can allow the re-instatement while section 7 of Act LIII of 1952 bar such proceedings. The petitioner then filed an appeal before the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed vide order dated 30-10-1983. Thereafter, he filed constitutional petition in the Sind High Court which was also dismissed by a learned Division Bench vide the impugned judgment dated 9-4-1986.
2. Learned counsel contended that the learned Courts below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them by not examining in detail the evidence on record and by not appreciating the special circumstances and limitations which compelled the petitioner to seek remedy under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1969; that the finding of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal are wrongly based on a decision of this Court Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited v. National Industrial Relations Commission and another PLD 1982 SC 113 and a decision of the Sind High Court in Khuda Bux v. Pakistan Steel Mill Corporation and others 1983 PLC 16; that section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is wider in its scope than the provisions of section 7 of the Essential Services Act LIII of 1952, and it is admitted fact that section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969 can allow the re-instatement while section 7 of Act LIII of 1952 does not provide the relief of reinstatement.
3. We have examined the contentions raised by the learned counsel and find that the argument is misconceived in PLD 1982 SC 113 it was held by this Court as under: "Where a statute provides a forum for dealing with the violation no other authority can be a substitute for it, the moreso when the act is an emergency legislation and has taken care to exclude the application of other laws which provide a forum for resolving the dispute between the employer and the employee arising from the violation of the terms and conditions of the service."
Thus, we find no merit in this petition, and refuse to grant leave / Petition dismissed.