' The petitioner had approached the Chairman, N. I. R. C. By submitting an application under section 6(1) of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 read with rule 3(1) of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Rules, 1962. The petition was lodged on 6-5-75. Vide my order dated 16.8-76 the petition was returned to the petitioner on the ground that Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 and the Rules made the under were not applicable to the respondent- Company since 14-7-76. As the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 was again made applicable to the respondent-Company w. e. f. 26-8-1976, the petitioner submitted an application dated 15-9-1976 praying that his application be entertained again and treated as if it was submitted before this Authority on 6-5-75. Consequently, proceedings were started in the case. The contention of the petitioner is that he joined the service with the respondent as Civil Draughtsman on 20-5-74 against a permanent vacancy and thus he was a permanent workman. That despite the fact that the petitioner was permanent workman, the respondent has not paid allowances and other benefits to him as are being paid to other permanent workmen. The allowances and other benefits have been duly enumerated in the application and It has been prayed that the direction may he issued to the respondent to pay the arrears of allowances, and provide the petitioner with the benefits since his joining the service like those which are being paid to other permanent workmen. Needless to add that I was duly authorised by the Chairman, N. I. R. C. To deal with the case ride his orders dated 29-9-76.
2, During the proceedings copy of the judgment of the Division 33ench of 1. Ashore High Court passed in Intra-Court Appeal No, 45/1976 dated 22-12-76 was received by the Commission and it became necessary for me to decide and give my findings whether I could proceed with the case in view of the above-mentioned judgment. The parties were to be heard today regarding the legal issue but only the learned counsel for the petitioner has turned up while no one has come to appear on behalf of the respondent. I have duly heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and have Aso gone carefully through the judgment of the Division Bench of Lahore high Court and find that the gist of the judgment is that the Chairman, I. R. C. And a Member of the Commission authorised by the Chairman in this behalf can under section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenances Act, 1952 regulate wages and other conditions of service of persons or of any crass of persons engaged in any employment or class of employment declared A under section 3 of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 to be an employment or class of Employment to which the said Act applies and that regulation of terms and conditions of service does not mean adjudication, and that the Chairman. N.
1. R. C. And a Member of the Commission authorised in this behalf cannot take up individual cases and give decisions thereon as an Appellate or Revision Authority and that as the Commission had not framed any Regulations in the cases decided by the Division Bench of Lahore High Court, the proper forum for the redress of the individual grievances was the Labour Court.
3. That the Specified Authority could issue regulations and the same could relate to an individual as well as to a class or to an establishment, but this could be done as a matter of general policy and not by way of settling a particular controversy. That the Rules, Regulations etc. Come first and their enforcement of the resolution or dispute come later. That the terms and conditions must be known to the employer who is to take action and the employee who will be ultimately affected. That the other Labour laws are ousted only to the extent of their inconsistency with the provisions of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952.
4. It is pertinent to note that the Commission was duly impleaded as a party in the said I. C. Appeal and as such the judgment of the Division Bench is binding on the Commission.
5. The present application admittedly is in respect of an individual grievance, and in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench, I ascertained the fact whether any Rules of Service had been framed by the Commission (the Specified Authority) and was informed that Mr. M. A. Kazi the learned Senior Member, of the Commission had framed certain Rules of Service for Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. Which were duly gazetted by the Government vide Gazette Notification dated 1- 11-1976. But my attention was also drawn to the fact that Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance)
Act, 1952 was not applicable to the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. At the time of Gazette Notification and as it was made applicable later on, the learned Senior Member vide his orders dated 10-1-1977 passed an order in supersession of his previous directions gazetted on 1-11-1976, to the effect that the said Rules shall henceforth apply to the employees of Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. The record shows that this order was sent for Notification in the official Gazette, and as the Commission has not received any copy of the Gazette Notification if any, hence it cannot be said with certainty whether the rules have been gazetted again or not, but even if these have been gazetted, the Rules as these are, which have been carefully perused by me do not make any difference, because I do not find any rule therein covering the present case, and there is no rule providing for redress of individual grievances a forum other than already available to the petitioner before the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 to the respondent-Company, and the learned Senior Member has not framed any rule to the effect that the Specified Authority under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 and the Rules made thereunder shall b the forum for the redress of individual grievance like the present one and I am of the considered opinion that in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Lahore High Court, wherein it has been held that "the specified authority if it wanted to change the forum, or terms and conditions of the respondents should have framed Regulations in the light of rule 3(2) of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Rules, 1962 but admittedly, nothing thereunder has been done".
6. It is worthwhile to note that the Rules framed by the learned Senior Member do not cover the present case and in view of rule 3(2) (b) of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Rules, 1962 which is as under :- "Prescribe any such terms or conditions as may affect adversely the rights to which a person is entitled, immediately before the publication of these rules, by virtue of any law, or under the terms of any award, agreement or contract duly made and operative."
' The right of the petitioner to take up the matter and get his individual grievance redressed from the forum available immediately before the Application of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 to the respondent-Company stands intact until and unless some other forum is created for the purpose.
7. In view of the judgment of the Division Bench of Lahore High Court, and the above observations, I am constrained to hold that the Rules framed by the learned Senior Member do not specify a forum other than and different from the one available to the petitioner for redress of his individual grievance immediately before the application of Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 to the respondent-Company, and as such be is to approach the proper forum in the light of the judgment of the Division Bench of Lahore given in I. C. Appeal No, 45/76 dated 22.12-1976 as I have got no jurisdiction to deal with the matter.
8. The original application alongwith Annexures if any filed by the petitioner be returned to him.