1973 PLP 144 (PLC)

(1)Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone, Lahore. Civil Districts of Lahore and Gujranwala (2) Punjab Labour Court, Central Zone, Lahore The Civil Divisions of Rawal Pindi (including the Federal Territory of Islamabad), Sargodha, Multan, Lahore (excluding the Civil Districts of Lahore and Gujranwala) and Bahawalpur (including Machka circle in Taluka Ubauro of Sukkur District).

2. Governor is further pleased to order the transfer of all cases pending before the Labour Courts to the Labour courts of proper jurisdiction. By Order of the Governor of the Punjab M. Mahmood, Secretary to Government of the Punjab, Labour Department." The learned counsel for the appellants contended that since both Malik Khalid Javed and Maskeen Ali were working in Sialkot City Branch of Habib Bank Limited, the cause of action arose there and as such the Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone, Lahore, had no jurisdiction to try their cases.

8. From the perusal of the above notification, the territorial jurisdiction of Sialkot has been given to Punjab Labour Court, Central Zone and not to Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone, Lahore.

9. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the second Vice-President, Mr. Tariq Javed who had passed the dismissal orders was a defendant in this case and since he resides in Gujranwala, the Court which had territorial jurisdiction of the civil Districts of Gujranwala also had jurisdiction to decide this case b. virtue of section 20, C. P. C. which reads as follows:- "Other suits to be instituted where defendants reside or cause of action arises. Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction- (a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries opt business, or personally works for gain; or (b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution ; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises. Explanation I-Where a per; on has a permanent dwelling at one place and also a temporary residence at another place, ht shall be deemed to reside at both places in respect of any cause of action arising at the place where he his such temporary residence. Explanation II.-A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in Pakistan or, in respect of any action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate once, at such place." Hence the Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone, Lahore had jurisdiction to try these cases. According to the learned counsel by virtue of section 36(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, a Labour Court shall be deemed to be a civil Court and shall have the same powers as are vested in such Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore, section 20 of C. P. C. would be applicable.

10. In the present cases the territorial jurisdiction of Sialkot District has been given to the Punjab Labour Court, Central Zone, Lahore. Both the respondents were employed in Sialkot Branch of Habib Bank Limited and their orders of dismissal were also communicated at Sialkot. The dispute related to their non-employment in the Sialkot Branch of Habib Bank Limited and as such the cause of action also arose there. The cognizance of the present petitions made by the respondents can only, therefore, be taken up by the Punjab Labour Court, Central Zone, Lahore and not by B Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone, Lahore. The second part of section 20, C. P. C. where the defendant resides, will have no application in view of judgment of the High Court in the case, Isac Nazirullah v. Dr. Dorothy and others (P L D 1967 Lah. 731) wherein at page 736 it was observed:- "Although by section 45 of the Divorce Act all proceedings under the Act between party and party have to be regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure, yet the application of this Code has been specifically made subject to, the provisions of the Act, and accordingly the prohibition contained in section 21 of the Civil Procedure Code to the effect that "no objection as to the place of suing shall be allowed by any appellate or revisional Court, unless such objection was taken in the Court of the first Instance at the earliest possible opportunity and in all cases where issues are settled at or before such settlement, and unless there has been a consequent failure of justice;' cannot be invoked in the present case. According to the definition of the term "District Court" given in subsection (3) of section 3 of the Divorce Act, it is clear that the District Court competent to try a matrimonial dispute of this nature is the Court of the District Judge within the local limits of whose ordinary jurisdiction or of whose jurisdiction under this Act, the husband and wife reside or last resided together. If the conditions mentioned in this subsection are not fulfilled, the District Court concerned would not have jurisdiction to try the dispute, and this position would prevail irrespective of the fact whether objection to the Court's jurisdiction was or was not taken by one party or the other."

11. Even assuming that section 20, C. P. C. applies the case is hit by Explanation II of that section, which lays down that in cases suits against corporations, the action will be maintainable where the head of the corporation is situated, or where any Branch Office is situate, provided the cause of action arises at the second place. Since Habib Bank Limited is a registered company it is a corporation under the Companies Act. The petitions were against Habib Bank Limited, which has admittedly its Head Office at Karachi and branch office at Sialkot. The petitions, therefore, could have either been field at Karachi or in the Labour Court having jurisdiction over Sialkot District. In view of the above I hold that Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone, Lahore, had no jurisdiction too entertain these petitions. Under these circumstances, it will not be now necessary for me to decide the other preliminary objections. 1, accordingly, accept both the appeals, set aside the orders of the Punjab Labour Court, Northern Zone, Lahore and dis hiss the petitions filed by the respondents. In the result, the appeals filed by Malik Khalid Javed and Maskeen Ali are dismissed and both the appeals filed by he Habib Bank Limited against Malik Khalid Javed and Maskeen Ali are accepted.