1988 PLP 709 (PLC(CS))

198 5 P L C 54 3 held not applicable. S.P. Lodhi for Appellant. Muhammad Humayon for Respondent. Date of hearing: 8th February, 1988. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 24‑2‑1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.V at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 19699.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to have been working in the respondent factory situated at Hub in the Province of Baluchistan, as a Fitter since 1‑11‑1983 and that he was a Vice‑President of Allied Tractors Ltd. Employees Union which was registered with the National Industrial Relations Commission for the establishments being located in the Provinces of Sind and Baluchistan and its Head Office being situated at 11 Dockyard, West Wharf Road, Karachi, Province of Sind. He further claimed that as a measure of victimization for his active participation in the union's activities, he was issued a false charge‑sheet by the Managing Director of the respondent establishment having its Head Office at 11 Dockyard, West Wharf Road, Karachi and in spite of his satisfactory reply to this charge‑sheet, an enquiry was ordered by the said Head Office, to be conducted at Head Office, Karachi to which he objected, but, it was shifted to the Services Establishment of the respondent located at S.I.T.E. area, Karachi, where this enquiry was completed. The appellant further claimed that thereafter, the Managing Director of the respondent at Karachi had issued the dismissal order of his service. Further, the claim of the appellant was that being aggrieved, he served his grievance notice upon the respondent establishment followed by his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

3. The respondent establishment instead of resisting the petition on merits, had raised legal objections to the maintainability of the grievance petition on the ground that as the appellant was appointed to work at the respondents' factory situated at Hub in the Province of Baluchistan and throughout the period of his, employment he had remained there till his dismissal from service, therefore, his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I. R.O. 1969 before a Labour Court situated at Karachi in the Province of Sind was not maintainable for want of jurisdiction, so, it was liable to be dismissed only on this legal issue. However, the appellant resisted to this legal issue raised by the respondents establishment by reiterating that charge‑sheet was issued by Head Office, enquiry was conducted at Karachi and the dismissal order was also issued by the Head Office situated at Karachi, so, a Labour Court situated at Karachi had jurisdiction to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969.

4. The learned Labour Court after hearing both the parties on this legal issue had passed the impugned order, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have also heard Cdr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant and Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent establishment and have also perused the record and proceedings of the case as well as the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties. At the very outset, I would observe here that in view of the admitted position on behalf of the appellant himself and the observation of this Tribunal, I would hold that the learned Labour Court has correctly passed the impugned order and so it needs not to be interfered. However, Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent had referred me to a number of cases reported in 1987 P L C 390 at 397,1 1982 P L C 209 at 213, Appeal No.89 of 1987 decided on 8‑11‑1987. I would hold that these cases are very well applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. On the other hard, Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant has pleaded that the charge‑sheet was issued by the Managing Director at Karachi, letter of enquiry was issued by Karachi Office, enquiry was also conducted at Karachi and the appellant was also dismissed from service by Karachi Office. He further pointed out that on 31‑10‑1983, the appellant was also appointed by the Karachi Office, therefore, for all purposes, the Labour 'Court situated at Karachi had a jurisdiction in the present matter as the cause of action to the appellant had accrued at Karachi. In support of his contentions, Mr. S.P. Lodhi, the learned representative for the appellant has referred to a case reported in 1985 P L C 543, Civil Appeal No. KAR‑143 of 1982 of the Supreme Court upholding the decision of a Division Bench of High Court of Sind in Case No.HCA‑66 of 1982. After careful perusal of these cases and examination of the facts and circumstances of the present case, I would hold that these are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, hence, they are distinguishable.

6. For the reasons discussed by m e above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and I would maintain the same, I would accordingly dismiss the present appeal. A.E. /1209/Lb.S Appeal dismissed.