1986 PLP 527 (PLC)

3. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted in his reply statement that the petitioner was appointed at Azad Kashmir and he was dismissed from service, vide order, dated 12‑9‑1984 and that the N.I.R.C. has no territorial jurisdiction over the matter of service in Azad Kashmir. He therefore, prayed that the petition may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Head Office of the Organisation is located at Karachi and the matter was decided by the Head Office, Karachi. He also stated that the grievance notice was also sent to the Head Office, Karachi. He cited 1985 PLC 662 and 1973 P L C 144 and 1980 P L C

194. In view of these rulings he stated that the Commission had jurisdiction in this matter. The learned counsel for the respondent further stated that the Head Office was not the respondent in this case as the petition has been filed against the Circle Office, Azad Kashmir Circle, Muzaffarabad through Senior Vice‑President. He stated that he was serving in Azad Kashmir at Chak Sawari and was dismissed in Azad Kashmir, which was a foreign country as far as Pakistan is concerned. The learned counsel referred to section 20 of the C.P.C. which lays down that. every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction 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 on any business, or personally works for gain. He stated that the petitioner was dismissed in Azad Kashmir and he cannot come to Islamabad outside his territorial jurisdiction to seek redress of his grievance.

5. The petition has been filed under section 22‑A (8)(g) read with section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969. The I.R.O., 1969 extends to the whole of Pakistan and was subsequently applied to the Tribal Areas of the Quetta Division in the Province of Baluchistan and to the Provincially Administered Tribal Areas or to the parts of those areas to which it does not already apply. Article 2 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan defines the territories of Pakistan. This was amended by the Constitution (First Amendment Act, 1974). Article 2 of the Constitution provides that the territories of Pakistan shall comprise: (a) The province of Baluchistan, North‑West Frontier Province; the Punjab and Sind. (b) The Islamabad Capital Territory, hereinafter referred to as the Federal Capital. (c) The Federally Administered Tribal Areas, and (d) Such States and territories as are or may be included in Pakistan whether by accession or otherwise. Article 3 provides that Parliament may by law admit into the Federation) any new States or areas on such terms and conditions as it thinks fit. This shows that territories of Azad Kashmir do not comprise part of l Pakistan. This State is not acceded to Pakistan nor has the Parliament admitted Azad Kashmir into the Federation. This being the position the I.R.O is not applicable to Azad Kashmir.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited 1985 P L C

662. I have gone through this case and I find that the petitioner in this case was employed in P.I.D.C. at Karachi and was liable to be transferred to different units of P.I.D.C. At the relevant time he was working as Choukidar in P.I.D.C's. Tarbela Cotton Mills, N.‑W.F.P. This case is not relevant as the question related to the employment of the petitioner in Pakistan and not in Azad Kashmir. In 1973 P L C 144 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner the territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Courts in Pakistan has been discussed and there is no point relating to Azad Kashmir. In fact the learned counsel has not cited any ruling relating to the case.

7. In view of the fact that the Industrial Relations Ordinance is not applicable to the workers employed in Azad Kashmir, this petition is not maintainable and is dismissed in limine. A . E. Petitions dismissed.