DECISION This appeal has been filed against the order of the Labour Court dismiss--ing the preliminary objection.
2. The respondent was in the employment of the West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation. By Ordinance No. 5 of 1974 the services of the employees were transferred to other projects taken over by the Government. Consequently, the respondent was transferred to Messrs Quality Steel Works Ltd. by a letter dated 9th March, 1974. He joined the new concern on 12th March, 1974. The grievance of the respon--dent is that, although, the terms and conditions of service of the employees were protected by virtue of Section 6(4) of the Ordinance but he was not allowed the benefits to which he was entitled prior to his transfer. He, therefore, made an application to the Labour Court under section 25-A, I. R. O.
3. A preliminary objection was taken that the application was not maintainable by virtue of sections 3 and 10 of the Ordinance as the jurisdic--tion of the Courts was barred. It was also pleaded that certain benefits claimed by the respondent were also barred by virtue of section 6, clause (5) of the Ordinance.
4. The Labour Court entertained the view that the bar was not applicable as the conditions laid down by those sections were not fulfilled. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal was filed.
5. Taking up the question of bar of the jurisdiction reliance was placed upon sections 3 and 10 of the Ordinance, which read as under:- "3. Ordinance to override other Laws.-The provisions of this Ordinance and any rule or order made there-under shall have effect notwithstand--ing anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, or in any contract, agreement, award, memorandum or articles of association or other instrument whatsoever.
10. Bas of Jurisdiction.-(1) No Court shall call in question, or permit to be called in question, any provision of this Ordinance, or of any rule or order made or anything done or any action taken or purporting to be made, done or taken there-under.
(2) No Court shall grant any injunction, make any order or entertain any proceedings in relation to anything in good faith done or intended or purporting to be done under this Ordinance."
After reading both the sections together I am also of view that the reliefs claimed by the respondent are not hit by the Ordinance. He has not challenged any provisions of the Ordinance or Rule made there-under and any order passed or purported to have been passed under the Ordinance. The reliefs claimed by the respondent are not in conflict with any provisions of the Ordinance. So the preliminary legal objection must fail.
6. It was next urged that prayer No. 1 relating to promotion and prayer No. 4 relating to compensation could not be granted in view of section 6, clause (5) of the Ordinance. I entirely agree with this conten--tion. Promotion was claimed w. e. f. 1st April, 1974 but no provision of law or any order has been pointed out Justifying the grant of such a prayer, The promotion depends upon various factors and cannot be granted as a matter of course. Clause (6) also bars the jurisdiction of Courts and Tribunal to entertain any claim with regard to the payment of any compensation or to the designation. I entirely agree with the learned counsel for the appellant that prayers Nos. 1 and 4 could not be granted and so the question of their consideration does not arise.
7. So far the remaining three prayers, i.e. Nos. 2, 3 and 5 are concerned, the same depend upon the evidence and this has been conceded on behalf of the appellant. Consequently, the Labour Court is competent to investigate into these reliefs and consider the entitlement of the respondent.
8. With the aforesaid observation the appeal stands dismissed.