1987 PLP 572 (PLC)

Farooq A.Ghani for Respondents. The view taken by Mr. Mahmood Ghani regarding application of section 53(1‑A) I.R.O., that it bars the jurisdiction of Labour Court, is based on the correct position of the law on the authoritative judicial precedent in P L D 1987 Kar.67 in case of Sajjad Mahmood v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court. The contention of Mr. Jeelani that the Labour Court has jurisdiction under section 53(1), if there is contravention of section 8‑A, the Court has referred the observation which Court respectfully reads as under: "The contention in that decision was that the functions of the jurisdiction of N.I.R.C. have been specified in section 22‑A(8), I.R.O., which provides that N. I. R. C. has jurisdiction to try offences punishable under section 53 except those mentioned in subsections (1) and (5) and to deal with the cases of unfair labour practice specified under sections 15 and 16, I.R.O., N.I.R.C. has power on the application of party or sue mote to initiate prosecution trial or proceeding in respect of matters relating to its function. It can also withdraw any application or proceedings or appeal relating to unfair labour practice or refers such cases to Labour Court for report or dispose of. Subsection (11) provides that except the cases referred to the Labour Court under subsection (10‑A) and cases of unfair labour practice, the Labour Court shall not entertain or take any action relating to matters falling within the jurisdiction of N .I. R. C. Subsection (12) provides that section 22‑A does not debar the Labour Court from entertaining cases of unfair labour practice. In order to determine whether Labour Court has jurisdiction to try offence under section 53 one has to look to the other provisions of the I.R.O.

2. His lordship has further referred that the effect of these provisions is that although the Labour Court is empowered to try the offences under the Ordinance, limitation has been placed by section 53 to the effect that it can try offences under this section only if authorised b y N.I.R.C. ‑‑‑‑‑‑

3. With due respect to the view taken by Mr. Jeelani that complaint is filed under section 53(1), the Court has referred to the case law and find that except the permission of the N.I.R.C., the Labour Court cannot take cognizance under section 53 whether be of section 1(A) or subsection (1).

4. Another question of law is raised which Court itself has raised regarding competency of the private party to come in the Court without prior authorisation of Registrar.

5. As the question of jurisdiction was important issue to avoid the proceedings being corum non judice and the view taken by the Court, previously in the cases in context of section 13 the Registrar is only the authority to grant permission for the institution of complaints, the Court is now further assisted by 2 other judicial precedents of the superior Courts‑ in case of Muhammad Akram v. Sind Labour Court 1976 P L C 719 and P L C 1982 973 in the case of Azmatullah Hussaini v. Labour Court.

6. In view of this position of law unless there is general or special order or the permission of the Hon'ble Commission, the Court has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the complaint under section 53, I. R. O. , in view of the judicial decision of the Hon'ble High Court.

7. Complaint is without jurisdiction and accordingly dismissed. M.Y.H./911/Lb Complaint dismissed.