1993 PLP 349 (PLC)

The above four petitions have been filed by the President of Habib Bank Limited Officers, Welfare Association, a Trade Union within the meaning of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance). Since common question of law is involved in all the four petitions, they are proposed to be decided hereby together. Briefly the history of the case is that respondents Nos. 3 to 5 were the members of the Executive Committee of the said Association. The nominations were invited for fresh elections of the office‑bearers of the said Association. The nomination paper filed by respondent No‑3 was rejected. However, the elections were held and new office‑bearers were elected. The above change of the office‑bearers was notified to respondent No. 2, the Registrar of the Trade Unions as required under section 8(4) of the said Ordinance, who examined it in the light of the objections and pleas raised and accepted the same by order dated 7‑12‑1991. Being aggrieved, respondents Nos. 3 to 5 filed Appeal No. 01/1992 against the aforesaid order. They also 'filed an application seeking stay of the operation of the aforesaid order. Though the matter pertained to the jurisdiction of Sindh Labour Court V, it . was taken up by respondent No.. 1, the then Presiding Officer of Sindh Labour Court III, who, by order dated 4‑1‑1992, suspended the operation of order dated 7‑12‑1991 till the next date of hearing. The suspension of the said order was extended from date to date and it was so extended till 5‑3‑1992. The petitioner filed applications, challenging the jurisdiction of respondent No. 1, including application dated 15‑4‑1992. On 13‑5‑1992, the said respondents filed application for urgent hearing of the stay application and also sought extension of the above order dated 4‑1‑1992 till final disposal of the appeal. On the said application, respondent No. 1 ordered notice for 16‑5‑1992 and at the same time granted interim stay till the disposal of the appeal. That is to say the said application was granted without hearing the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 did not pass any order in so far as petitioner's application dated 15‑4‑1992 is concerned. The petitioner invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal who passed the following order on 21‑5‑1992:‑‑ "Mr. Suleman Habibullah, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Choudhry Abdur Rasheed Ahmed, Advocate for respondents Nos. 4 and

5. The contention is that at the material time the learned Presiding Officer did not have the powers to proceed with the matter as there was no notification what to say its being issued in the Official Gazette. In that view of the matter the impugned order will be a nullity of law and stands vacated." It appears that on 4‑7‑1992, respondent No. 1 again took up the said matter. The learned Advocate for the petitioner filed an application for adjournment on the ground that he had reached Karachi at 9‑30 a.m. and, therefore, he could not bring the brief of the matter from his office. Respondent No. 1 adjourned the case to 9‑7‑1992 but at the same time ordered the parties to maintain status quo. The petitioner in the meanwhile had filed application under Order VII, Rule 11 read with section 151, C.P.C. and section 7(8) of the Ordinance for dismissal of the appeal on the ground that it had become infructuous which was dismissed by respondent No. 1 by order dated 13‑7‑1992. The petitioner also had filed application requesting that the application filed by respondents Nos. 3 to 5 under section 8(7) be treated as an application and not as an appeal. This application was also dismissed by respondent by order dated 14‑7‑1992. On 25‑7‑1992, the learned Advocate for the petitioner again submitted an application for adjournment of the case to some suitable date as he was likely to be busy at Islamabad from 25‑7‑1992 to 7‑8‑1992. Along with the application, he attached the air ticket. The matter was again put up before respondent No. 1 who instead of adjourning the matter to a date after 7‑8‑1992, adjourned it to 27‑7‑1992. On the said date the application was filed by the petitioner for adjournment and respondents Nos. 3 to 5 also filed an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. praying for suspension of the impugned order dated 7‑12‑1991. Respondent No. 1 granted the application filed by respondents Nos. 3 to. 5 without any notice to the Petitioner. The Petitioner being aggrieved against the assumption of the jurisdiction by respondent No. 1 and the orders passed by him, has filed the aforesaid four Constitutional petitions. In Const. Petition No. S‑51/1992, order dated 14‑7‑1992, in Const. Petition No: S‑52/1992, order dated 14‑7‑1992 and in Const. Petition No. S‑54/1992, order dated 13‑7‑1992 have been sought to be declared as without jurisdiction and lawful authority and in violation of law. In Const. Petition No. S‑53/1992 and so also in the other three petitions he has assailed assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No. 1 in respect of the dispute pending before Sindh Labour Court V. I have heard Mr. Suleman Habibullah, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Choudhry Abdul Rasheed, Advocate for respondents Nos. 3 to

5. The common ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner in all the petitions is that the orders passed by respondent No. 1 are without jurisdiction as he had no jurisdiction whatsoever to pass orders in the matter pending, before the Sindh Labour Court V, Karachi. He has relied on section 35 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which reads as under:‑ "

35. Labour Court.‑‑(1) 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 or the industry or the classes of cases in respect of which. each one of them shall exercise jurisdiction under this Ordinance. (2) A Labour Court shall consist of one Presiding Officer appointed by the Provincial Government. (3) A person shall not be qualified for appointment as Presiding Officer unless he has been or is qualified to be, Judge or Additional Judge of a High Court or is a District Judge or Additional District Judge: Provided that the Provincial Government of Balochistan may, after consultation with the Federal Government, appoint any person not so qualified to be the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court. (5) A Labour Court shall,‑‑‑ (a) adjudicate and determine an industrial dispute which has been referred to or brought before it under this Ordinance, (b) enquire into and adjudicate any matter relating to the implementation or violation of a settlement which is referred to it by the Provincial Government, (c) try offences under this Ordinance, and such other offences under any other law as the Provincial Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf, (d) exercise and` perform such other powers and functions as are or may be conferred upon or assigned to it by or under this Ordinance or any other law." In exercise of the powers conferred by the said section, the Sindh Government issued Notification dated 28‑1‑1976, whereby the territorial limits of the Labour Courts in the Province were notified. The Third Sindh Labour Court has been assigned the areas of Police Station SITE, other than those shown against the Second Labour Court. The Fifth Labour Court has been assigned territorial jurisdiction in respect of 20 Police Stations of the Karachi Division, including Police Station Artillery Maidan. It is not disputed that the present dispute arose within the limits of Police Station Artillery Maidan. It is also not disputed that the aforesaid Notification was published in the official Gazette as required under section 35 of the Ordinance. The learned Advocate for respondents Nos. 3 to 5, however, contended that by Notification dated 19‑5‑1992, issued by the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, the charge of Labour Court Vth was given to respondent No.

1. It reads as under:‑‑ Mr. Shabbir Ahmed, Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. III, Karachi, is allowed to hold the charge of Labour Court No. V, Karachi, in addition to his own duties till further orders." The aforesaid Notification was published in the Sindh Government Gazette, Part I on 17‑9‑1992. Section 35 specifically lays down firstly that the Provincial Government May by Notification published in the official Gazette establish as many Labour Courts as it considers necessary and where it establishes more than one Labour Court, it shall specify in the Notification the territorial limits within which, or the industry, or the classes of cases in respect of which, each one of them shall exercise jurisdiction. By Notification dated 28‑1‑1976, the Sindh Government established six Labour Courts assigning them territorial limits. It was, however, provided in the Notification that the cases then pending in the aforesaid Courts on the date of the said Notification would be disposed of by those Courts, i.e. to say irrespective of territorial limits. Under the said Notification thus the Sindh Government has chosen to establish the Courts, with reference to territorial limits only, which have been partly mentioned with reference to the entire territorial limits of the Police Stations and partly by reference to specified areas of the Police Stations, as has been dune in the case of Second and Third Labour Courts. It is not necessary to go into these details as in the present case it is not disputed that tile jurisdiction depends on territorial limits assigned to each Court and the present dispute pertains to the territorial limits of Police Station Artillery Maidan. Thus on the simple construction of the Notification read with section 35 of the Ordinance, the Fifth Labour Court was established to exercise jurisdiction within the limits of Police Station Artillery Maidan and the jurisdiction within those limits could be exercised only by the said Court. It is established principle of interpretation of the statute that each word of the statute is to be given effect to and so also it is established rule of law that if a thing is required to be done in a particular manner, it shall be done in such manner or not at all. Section 35 specifically provides the establishment of Courts by Notification published in the official Gazette. It also provides that a Labour Court shall consist of one Presiding Officer appointed by the Provincial Government. Under such circumstances respondent No. 1, who, at the relevant time was admittedly Presiding Officer of the Third Labour Court, had no jurisdiction to‑ exercise any powers with reference to any dispute, falling within territorial limits of the Fifth Labour Court. With reference to the contention raised by the learned Advocate for respondents Nos. 3 to 5, it may be observed that the Chief Secretary's order dated 19‑5‑1992 was published in the Sindh Government Gazette of 17‑9‑1992. Respondent No. 1. therefore. could have assumed the jurisdiction to respect of the matters pending before the Fifth Sindh Labour Court only from the date of the aforesaid publication and not from 19‑5‑1992. Reference may be made to the case of Muhammad Siddique v. The Market Committee, Tandlianwala (1983 SCMR 785). There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion that respondent No. 1 had illegally assumed the jurisdiction in the matter, which was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Fifth Sindh Labour Court and all the orders passed by respondent No. 1, including orders dated 13‑7‑1992, 14‑7‑1992 and 27‑7‑1992 are hereby declared to be without jurisdiction and lawful authority. All the petitions are allowed accordingly with costs. A.A./G‑324/K Petitions accepted.