1990 PLP 798 (PLC)

MUKHTAR AHMAD JUNEJO, J.‑‑Petitioners have invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court against an order passed on 7‑8‑1988 by learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as the Tribunal), in Appeal No.KAR‑256 of 1986.

2. Admittedly the respondent No.1 Moatabar Khan joined WAPDA as Dozer Operator and was put to work at Hub Dam Project. Subsequently on 1‑9‑1974 respondent No.1 and some other employees of WAPDA were sent on deputation to M.C.P (Mechanised Construction Company of Pakistan). While working under M.C.P. respondent No.1 was sent to Iraq in April, 1981 and on his return he reported for duty to the Project Manager, M.C.P., Karachi on 23‑10‑83 but as alleged he was not allowed to resume duty. He moved the Labour Court as a result of which he was reinstated in service by M.C.P. Subsequently, respondent No.1 was transferred to Sukkur where he was posted to work in the Field Division under the Project Manager, M.C.P. In May, 1984 respondent No.1 was delivered through the Project Manager, M.C.P., Karachi explanation letter issued by WAPDA at Lahore. Said letter was replied by the respondent No.1 through the Project Manager, M.C.P., Karachi on 6‑6‑1984. Thereafter, respondent No.1 was sent by WAPDA Lahore through Project Manager, M.C.P., Karachi another show‑cause notice dated 9‑6‑1984, which was replied by the respondent No.1 on 4‑7‑1984. Lastly, the respondent No. 1 was delivered on 6‑4‑1985 through the Sub‑Engineer R.B.O.D., Dadu an order issued by the WAPDA Lahore on 4‑12‑1984 terminating services of the respondent No.1.

3. Being aggrieved with the letter of termination the respondent No.1 sent grievance notice dated 14‑4‑1985 to the M.C.P. Authorities for reinstatement. Since he was not reinstated in service he moved grievance application under section 25‑A of I.R.O. in the First Labour Court, Karachi.

4. Learned Ist Labour Court proceeded with the case and came to the conclusion that it had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter, because the respondent No.1 had received various letters including the letter of termination of service from Lahore and his posting was at Dadu and he was getting his salary from Sukkur. After taking such view learned Labour Court under an order dated 31‑7‑1986 dismissed the grievance application.

5. Respondent No.1 filed Appeal No.KAR‑256/86 in the Tribunal challenging the order dated 31‑7‑1986. Learned Tribunal after hearing the representatives of the parties did not agree with the Labour Court that it lacked territorial jurisdiction and set aside the order, dated 31‑7‑1986 passed by the Labour Court. At the same time the learned Tribunal under the same order dated 7‑8‑1988 ordered reinstatement of respondent No.1 in service of appellant No.1 with full back benefits payable by the appellant No.1. Hence this Constitution Petition.

6. Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that no doubt the respondent No.1 joined WAPDA at Karachi but at the relevant time when his services were terminated he was posted at Sukkur and that the orders about termination of services were issued by the WAPDA authorities at Lahore and consequently the Labour Court at Karachi had no jurisdiction in the matter. In support learned Counsel for the petitioners cited the case of Sabir Din v. Government of Pakistan and others 1979 S C M R 555.

7. Mr. Zia Pervez, learned Counsel for respondent No.2 went on to argue that respondent No.1 was not a worker or workman for the purposes of invoking jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. He was reticent about the question of territorial jurisdiction.

8. Mr. Muhammad Ahmed, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 argued that it was at Karachi that the respondent No. 1 was appointed by WAPDA at its Hub Dam Project and then it was through the Project Manager, M.C.P. at Karachi that the respondent No.1 was receiving his salary and hence the Labour Court at Karachi had jurisdiction in the matter.

9. In the case of Sabir Din v. Government of Pakistan and others, an Officer of Military Estate Service was posted at Abbottabad and thereafter he was transferred to Muzaffarabad in Azad Kashmir and thereafter he was recommended for reversion by the Establishment Division of the Government of Pakistan. The affected Officer challenged orders of his reversion under a Constitution Petition in the Peshawar High Court, which refused to exercise jurisdiction in the matter, for want of jurisdiction. Such view was maintained by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cited case and it was observed as below:‑ "The normal considerations of `residence', etc. and the `cause of action' qua territorial jurisdiction, even if attracted in the circumstances, do not support the petitioner's case. The cause of action partly arose at Muzaffarabad and partly at Rawalpindi. The Central Government, as held in the case of Waliullah Safyani, does not reside at any one place, in the realm. However, the respondent No. 2 whose order (Annexure'B' to the writ petition) was brought under challenge, is at Rawalpindi. On this view the Peshawar High Court would have no territorial jurisdiction. The Hazara Office of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 is only one chain in the administrative set up. It has not done anything against the petitioner nor any relief has been sought against it nor even a formal one. Indeed it has not even been impleaded as a party. That aspect of the matter either, would not confer territorial jurisdiction on the Peshawar High Court." In the same case it was further observed as below:‑‑ "The question having arisen in the context of. a writ petition the Peshawar High Court was justified in refusing to exercise jurisdiction on another ground as well. As provided in Article 199 (1) (a) of the Constitution the impugned action or the authority taking the same, should be within the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, for exercise of jurisdiction thereunder. None of those conditions is satisfied herein. Therefore, the refusal by the Peshawar High Court to exercise jurisdiction is unexceptionable."

10. In the instant case the respondent No.1 was not posted at Karachi when the impugned order terminating his services was issued by the Chief Engineer Coordination (Water) WAPDA, Lahore. Prior to that the respondent No.1 was issued, explanation letter dated 10‑5‑1984 and show‑cause notice, dated 9‑6‑1984 1 by the Chief Engineer Coordination WAPDA, Lahore and even at that time the respondent No.1 was not posted at Karachi. Mere fact that the respondent No.1 was being paid his salary through the Project Manager, M.C.P., Karachi, would not give jurisdiction to the Labour Court at Karachi if otherwise it has no jurisdiction. In this view of the matter and in the light of the observations made in the case of Sabir Din 1979 S C M R 555 we are clear in our minds that the Ist, Sindh Labour Court, Karachi rightly held that it had no jurisdiction in the matter. As a natural consequence of this, learned Labour Court should have returned the grievance application to the respondent No.1 for being presented in the proper court and should not have dismissed the grievance application itself. This was also the view of learned Tribunal. However, learned Tribunal while holding that the Labour Court had proper jurisdiction to entertain grievance application of the respondent No.1, has not given proper reasons for taking such view. We find that view of learned Tribunal about competency of Labour Court at Karachi to deal with this matter, is not based on sound principles of law laid down by the superior courts from time to time.

11. We are at a loss to find that learned Labour Tribunal while reversing finding of the Labour Court on the point of jurisdiction, has proceeded to accept the grievance application on merits, on the only ground that there was nothing on record to prove the allegations against the respondent No.1, who was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself as per law. In our view the proper course for learned Tribunal was to remand the matter to the Labour Court after holding that the Labour Court at Karachi had jurisdiction.

12. Taking into consideration all the factual and legal points discussed above, we feel that the interests of justice and equity would be served in a best possible way if this matter is remanded for fresh decision on merits to the Sind Labour Court No.7 at Sukkur. Consequently we accept this petition and hold order of the Tribunal and order of the Labour Court to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect and direct the Labour Court at Sukkur to proceed with the grievance application of respondent No.1 in accordance with law. Needless to add that the parties would be at liberty to raise any point in the Labour Court at Sukkur other than the point of territorial jurisdiction. Learned Tribunal to see that R & Ps. of the relevant case arc sew by Sindh Labour Court No.1 Karachi to Sindh Labour Court No.7 at Sukkur, without any delay. 1n the circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. The parties are directed to appear personally or through their representatives or Advocates in the Labour Court at Sukkur on 24‑2‑1990. M.Y.H./E‑41/K Petition allowed.