1. ORDER Muhammad Muslim appellant has preferred this appeal against the order dated 7th August, 1973 passed by the Junior Labour Court, Rawalpindi, whereby his application for re-instatement was dismissed. The brief facts of the case as contained in the petition for re-instatement are that the petitioner joined H. M. C. Project Taxila on 4th December, 1968. He was promoted and confirmed on 18th September 1970. He was designated as Overseer although "the nature of work that he performed was that of a worker and he was performing the work with his own hand. He was transferred to the H. F. F. Project on lst December 1971 and his services were illegally and maliciously terminated on 11th July 1972 by the authority who actually was not competent to do so." He received the information about his termination on 27th July 1972. He had been agitating his grievance with the Departmental authority but to no avail. In the petition, it is further Stated that after the termination of the petitioner-appellant four other persons were employed by the Department in 1972-73. The respondent resisted the petition and in the reply statement raised the preliminary objections that the petition is time-barred, that the petitioner does not fall in the category of workmen and had failed to submit a grievance notice, therefore, the petition is not maintainable.
2. On factual side it was alleged that on completion of the construction work of H. M. F. the petitioner became surplus to requirement and instead of terminating him, the respondent offered him post of Supervisor in H. F. F. on the same terms and conditions,--vide order, dated 20th March 1972, but he returned the letter containing the order with the remarks that it was not meant for him. He was posted to H. F. F. but he returned the posting order with the marks that it had been wrongly delivered to him with the result that the said order was withdrawn and his services were terminated extending him full termination benefits. Appearing as R. W. Mr. Aftab Ahmad Khan, Deputy Manager, Labour further stated that all services under the respondent have been declared as essential under the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The learned Junior Labour Court held that in view of the provisions of section 7-A of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act of 1952, it had no jurisdiction in the matter and dismissed the petition for re-instatement. Arguments of the counsel for the appellant and those of the representative of the respondent have been heard. The petition for re-instatement was filed on 7th July 1973, by Notification dated 27th February 1973, the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 was made applicable to all classes of employment under W. P. 1.
3. D. C. Heavy Mechnical Complex, Taxila and by Notification dated 25th August 1973, the Federal Government was pleased to direct that declaration made in the Notification dated 27th February 1973 declaring all classes of employment under the W.P.I.D.C. Heavy Mechanical Complex, Taxila as Essential Services, shall remain in force for a further period of 6 months. In 1973 PLC 94 the Sind & Baluchistan High Court has held that a Labour Court is not competent to entertain applications relating to the conditions of service, etc. of a workman of an employment declared by the Central Government as Essential Service under section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance)
4. Act, 1952. This ruling was followed by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal of Sind in . These appeals had arisen out of applications made by the workers for their re-instatement under section 34 of the D.R.O., 1969. No. authority to the contrary on this specific point was cited by the appellant.
5. The order under appeal is well-reasoned and calls for no interference. For the foregoing reason, the appeal is dismissed.