1995 PLP 57 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, Rr. 11 & 10‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Want of territorial jurisdiction‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Grievance petition could not be dismissed for lack of territorial jurisdiction under O. VII, R.11, C.P.C: ‑Such petition, however, has to be returned under O.VII, R. 10, C.P.C. for presentation before Competent Court having jurisdiction. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXHI of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 20(c)‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court to entertain and decide workman's grievance petition who had been dismissed by employer‑‑‑Objection to territorial jurisdiction‑‑‑When workman's services were terminated he was serving in the project within territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court concerned‑‑‑Provision of S. 20(c), C.P.C. provides that a suit can also be filed where cause of action in whole or in part had accrued‑‑‑Orders passed by Labour Court that it had territorial jurisdiction in the matter would need no interference in circumstances. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui for Petitioner This Constitution petition is directed against the orders passed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, upholding the orders passed by Labour Court No. VI, Hyderabad.

2. The facts relevant for the purposes of this petition are that respondent No. 1 is an employee of present petitioner working in their Limestone Project at Makli and that for the reason mentioned in the order terminating his service he was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 1 had instituted grievance petition after serving a due notice under section 25‑A of the I.R.O., 1969, before respondent No. 2 at Hyderabad. During the proceedings the present petitioner moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., praying for rejection of the grievance petition for the reasons that Hyderabad Court had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. The learned respondent No.2 after discussing the matter at length had held that the Hyderabad Court also had territorial jurisdiction in the matter as the respondent No. 1 was employed at Limestone Project at Makli, which falls within the District of Thatta and in the territorial jurisdiction of Hyderabad Court. Being aggrieved, the petitioners had filed the appeal before the respondent No. 3, which was also dismissed. Thus the petitioner have moved this Constitution petition.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. At the very outset we may observe that a petition cannot be rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. If it be so then also it has to be returned under Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. for presentation before Competent Court having jurisdiction. However, the question in the present case involves the occurrence of cause of action and it is to be determined as to where the cause of action accrues. It may be observed that the words "cause of action" means bundle of facts giving rise to a right which the plaintiff will have to prove if controverted or traversed by the defendant. This also involves the infringement of such right". In the present case it is an admitted position that at the time the service of the respondent No.1 were terminated he was serving the project at Makli. The provisions of section 20 clause (c) of the Civil Procedure Code, provides that a suit can also be filed where cause of action in whole or in part accrues. In these circumstances we are of the view that the orders passed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 need no interference. Accordingly the petition is dismissed in limine alongwith miscellaneous applications. AA./P‑303/K?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Petition dismissed.