' In this revision petition the legality, correctness and propriety of the order, dated 2-3-1999, of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haripur, has been called in question, whereby, he, while accepting the miscellaneous application of the respondent Corporation, dismissed the grievance petition of the petitioner as having abated, for want of jurisdiction.
2. Facts of the case briefly are that the petitioner was appointed as Incharge Wages by the respondent Corporation in Bolan Textile Mills, Quetta, vide Exh.P.W.3/1 which was subsidiary unit of the PIDC. He was transferred to Quidabad Wollen Mills Branch Office, Rawalpindi, vide Exh.P.W.3/2.
He was assigned the job of looking after the accounts of Specialised Refractories Project of addition to his duties vide, Exh.P.W.3/4. He was reappointed as Junior Officer (Accounts) by the respondent Corporation and posted to Specialised Refractory Project Abbottabad vide Exh.P.W.3/5.
He was charged-sheeted for committing embezzlement, which was duly replied denying the allegations but his reply was not accepted and enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Committee after holding the enquiry held the petitioner guilty of the charges of negligence and recommended for lenient action because of his retirement and long services, consequently, the competent Authority ordered recovery of dues from him and imposed penalty of Rs,5,000 upon him. He retired from service on 3-3-1995 vide Exh.P.W.3/10 and was paid final dues for the service from 16th December, 1988, and was refused retirement benefits on the previous service rendered by him in different projects of the respondent Corporation. He served a grievance notice on the employer under section 25-A (1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, but the same was not responded, therefore, he approached the Labour Court, Haripur, through grievance petition under section 25-A, of the Ordinance (ibid) with the prayer that the respondent Corporation be directed to pay him total terminal benefits of his entire service.
4. During the pendency of the case before the learned Labour Court, Haripur learned counsel for the respondents Corporation, submitted an application for dismissal of the grievance petition under section 2-A, of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. The petitioner contested the application. The learned Labour Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, dismissed the grievance petition as having abated vide his order, dated 2-3-1999, which is impugned herein.
5. Both the learned counsel for the parties were heard in support of their respective view points and record was also perused with their assistance.
6. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not hit by section 2-A, of the Act as he was not an employee of the Corporation, has not force. The very grievance petition and memorandum of Appeal would show that the petitioner being a retired Junior.Officer (Accounts) Specialised Refractory Project PIDC, Abbottabad, sued PIDC through its functionaries and he admitted in his statement the Specialised Refractory Project to be a unit of PIDC where he was freshly appointed vide Appointment Letter No,SRP-I (Miscellaneous), dated 16- 12-1988, by the PIDC in Grade-E-I. PIDC is a statutory Corporation which was created vide Provincial Industrial Development Corporation Ordinance, 1962 (Ordinance XXXVIII of 1962), for promoting the economic and industrial development in the province and for matters ancillary thereto. The petitioner's grievance is against the Government controlled Corporation that it has not paid him the terminal benefits of his entire service rendered by him in the Corporation's Project, hence his case is hit by section 2-A, of the Services Tribunal Act, 1973, and in view thereof the forums under the Labour Laws have no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed as abated. However, the petitioner, if so advised, may seek the remedy before the proper forum.
Revision .