2005 PLP 26 (PLC)

(iv) respondent No. 2 submitted an application for transfer of the case from Punjab Labour Court No.II to any other Court of competent jurisdiction under section 38(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969; (v) the application of respondent No.2 was accepted by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 28-6-1999, which is attached with the report and parawise comments as Annexure R/1; (vi) the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal was not challenged by the petitioner before any higher forum; (vii) the petitioner did not raise any objection qua assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No. 1; (viii) respondent No.1 accepted the appeal of respondent No.2 vide order dated 17-7-1999. In case the aforesaid facts are put in a juxta position that objection raised by the learned counsel of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 has assumed the jurisdiction in violation of the provisions of the Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, has no force. It is admitted fact that the petitioner did not challenge the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal dated 28-6-1999 before any higher forum therefore, order dated 28-6-1999 is final qua the assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No. 1, between the parties as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Pir Bakhsh represented by his Legal Heirs and others v. The Chairman, Allotment Committee and others (PLD 1987 SC 145). Even otherwise the objection qua assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No. 1, has no force as the petitioner has submitted before respondent No. 1 and did not raise any objection of assumption of jurisdiction as mentioned above, therefore, petitioner has no lawful authority to raise objection against assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No. 1 on the well known principle of estoppel and waiver as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in Haji Ghulam Rasool and others v. The Chief Administrator of Auqaf, West Pakistan (PLD 1971 SC 376). Submission to jurisdiction without objection to lack of jurisdiction in Court, would disentitle submitting party to challenge the order of Court that plea grounded on a lack of jurisdiction; specially adverse order has been passed against the party on the well known principle of approabate and reprobate. It is also settled principle of law that the party, who has not raised, objection at the relevant time before the Court qua the assumption of jurisdiction then he has no right to raise the said objection after the case was decided against the party as the law laid down by the superior Courts in the following, judgments:

Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited v. Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (1993 P L C 287). Mst. Noor Jahan v. Mst. Roshan Jahan and other (1994 SCMR 2265). Chaudhry Haq Nawaz Chohan v. Chaudhry Tariq Azam and others (1994 CLC 1530). Nawab Din and others v. Muhammad Salim Aamer and others (1994 PCr.LJ 1831). The second contention of the learned counsel of the petitioner on merits has also no force as respondent No.1 has given finding of fact against the petitioner after proper appreciation of evidence and record and this Court has no jurisdiction to substitute its own findings in place of the findings of the Tribunal below as the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore through Chairman and another v. M. Massadaq Naseem Sindhoo (PLD 1973 Lahore 600). Syed Azmat Ali v. The Chief Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Lahore and others (PLD 1964 SC 260). It is settled principle of law that Constitutional jurisdiction is discretionary in character. Since the substantial justice has been done between the parties, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise my discretion in favour of the petitioner as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the following judgments:-- Nawab Syed Raunaq Ali and others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236). Rana Muhammad Arshad v. Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division and others (1998,SCMR 1462). It is pertinent to mention here that respondent No.2 preferred appeal against the following defendants before the Punjab Labour Court No.II. initially, which was transferred to Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore:-- i. Punjab Employees Social Security Institution, 3-A Gulberg V, Lahore. ii. The Director General, Punjab Employees Social Security Institution, (Local Office), 115/116, Rifle Range, Chauburji Park, Lahore. iii The Manager, Shafique Industries (Registered), 43/N Industrial Area, Gulberg, II, Lahore. Whereas the petitioner has filed this Constitutional petition on behalf of the Punjab Employees. Social Security Institution, through Commissioner, without impleading the aforesaid defendants as respondents in this Constitutional petition, therefore, this Constitutional petition is liable to be dismissed as the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in M. Ramizul Haq and others v. The Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi and others (PLD 1992 SC 221). It is admitted fact that petitioner has concealed material facts from this Court that the case was entrusted to respondent No.1 by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 28-6-1999, therefore, petition is liable to be dismissed as the law laid down in the following judgments:-- Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan and others (1983 SCMR 196). Principal, King Edward Medical College, Lahore v. Ghulam Mustafa and others (1969 SCMR 141). In view of what has been discussed above, this writ petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. H.B.T./P-24/L Petition dismissed.