' The appeal captioned above is directed against the decision dated 10-1-1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.
2. A question was raised before the learned lower Court that Fssential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 had been made applicable to the appellant and therefore, the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction. The learned lower Court has held that notification applying Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 to the appellant was issued commencing the period of six months from 4- 12-1980 and the appellant was dismissed from service on 20-3-1981, therefore, the remedy to the appellant was not in the Labour Court. There is a letter of Central Ministry dated 25-5-1981 whereby application of Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 was extended for further six months commencing the period from 4-12-1981. The period was to end on 3-6-1982. The grievance petition was brought in February, 1982. But the difficulty is that it has not been proved that this notification was actually published in the official Gazette. Such notifications take effect if they have been published in the official Gazette. The respondent was given adjournment to bring the original notification or its certified copy but none has been produced. Since no notification published in the official Gazette was produced before the learned lower Court, it was not competent and justified to hold that jurisdiction of the Labour Court was barred. The impugned order, therefore, is not sustainable.
3. Accepting the appeal and setting aside the impugned decision the case is remanded to the learned lower Court for fresh decision on the point of jurisdiction. The parties will be at liberty to produce evidence on the point. If the learned lower Court comes to the conclusion that it has jurisdiction, the case will be decided on merits and on other legal points, if any.