1995 PLP 489 (PLC(CS))

Abdul Hamid for Appellant. Date of hearing: 7th March, 1995. This appeal under section 37(3) of I.R.O., 1969 is directed against the order of 5th Sindh Labour Court, Karachi in respect of an Interlocutory order pertaining to territorial jurisdiction of the Court. Application under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 was filed in the Sindh Labour Court No. 5 at Karachi against M/s. People Steel Mills Limited having their registered office at First Floor, Al‑Fareed Center Molvi Tamizuddin Khan Road, Karachi. The grievance of the applicant was, that he was employed as Technical Assistant doing skilled, manual and clerical work in the Special Steel Pakistan Limited in S.I.T.E., Manghopir Road, Karachi. The applicant was removed from service in violation of Standing Order 12(3). The applicant was, therefore, filing his grievance petition after serving the grievance notice on the employer.

2. The respondents, People Steel Mills Limited, the Head Office, represented by Mr. Zahid Hamid fled objections before the learned Labour Court in the form of Written Arguments that the Labour Court had no territorial jurisdiction in respect of the grievance and the grievance petition was not, therefore, maintainable. These arguments were filed after the hearing had proceeded and after the recording of the evidence had commenced. The learned Labour Court held that these objections taken at the late stage when evidence had commenced had no legal force as the Court within whose jurisdiction the Head Office was situated as well as the Court within whose jurisdiction the factory was situated could both try this case since both the Courts had concurrent jurisdiction. The objection regarding want of jurisdiction was rejected.

3. During the pendency of the case before the Labour Court the learned counsel for the People Steel Mills has preferred this appeal under section 37(3) of the I.R.O.

4. Under section 37(3) any party aggrieved by an "award" or "decision" may prefer an appeal to Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 37(4) save as otherwise expressly provided all decisions of the. Labour Court shall be final and shall not be called in question before any authority.

5. The objection as to jurisdiction having been disposed of during the' pendency of the case cannot be considered to be an "award" or "decision" giving rise to right of appeal to the respondent. This appeal is, therefore, premature as the objection could have been taken against the final decision of the Labour Court, if so desired.

6. Section 35 of the I.R.O. deals with the jurisdiction of the various Labour Courts in the Province. It reads as under: "The Provincial Government may by Notification in the Official Gazette, establish as many Labour Courts as it considers necessary and where it establishes more than one Labour Court, shall specify in the Notification the territorial limits within which each one of them shall exercise jurisdiction under this Ordinance." This section, therefore, does not specify whether the cause of action shall determine the territorial limits of the Court or the place where Head Office of the respondent is situated. When the Labour Laws are silent on any question the ordinary principles laid down in the Civil Procedure Code shall apply. Under that Code the place where cause of action arises or the place where the defendant resides or works for gain shall determine the territorial jurisdiction of the Court. In this case the Head Office is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court No. 5, while the S.I.T.E. area where all the factories are situated is within territorial limits of Labour Court No. 2 therefore, both these Courts would appear to be having jurisdiction to entertain this petition as held by the learned Labour Court No.

5. I can therefore, see no reason to interfere with this decision. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed in limine. H.B.T./2447/Lb.S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed