1974 PLP 19 (PLC)

Muzaffargarh, Bahawal pur, Rahimyarkhan, Bahawalnagar, Jhelum, Campbellpur, Sheikhu‑ pura, Sialkot, Rawalpindi (including the Federal Territory of Islamabad) and Mackka Circle of . Sukkur District.

3. Labour Court No. 3 ...Civil Districts of Sargo‑ at Lyallpur. dha, Lyallpur, Jhang and Mianwali. By virtue of this notification the Labour Court in which this case was pending had lost the territorial jurisdiction due to fresh determination of the terri torial areas of various Labour Courts and the present case which is from Lyallpur District was automatically transferred to Labour Court No. 3 at Lyallpur.

2. Mr. Nazir Ahmad Naz, the learned representative of the petitioner contended that at the time when the present case was instituted, Punjab Labour Court, Central Zone, Lahore, bad jurisdiction to hear it and that the subsequent notification regarding the adjustment of territorial the Labour Courts will not affect the pending proceedings as Government can neither confer nor take away the jurisdiction given Labour Court by Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1959. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of Dacca High Court in the case, M/s. Gammon (Fast Pakistan) Limited, Dacca v. The Chairman, Second Labour Court of East Pakistan and others (1971 P L C 396) wherein it was held :‑ "By section 9 of the East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965, the Provincial Government had been given power to constitute and to determine the areas of the Labour Courts. So far as the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is concerned, it is given under section 6 of the Act. Therefore, the constitution or the reconstitution of the territorial area will not affect a pending proceeding. In the instant petitions the cases before the Labour Court were initiated at a time when it had jurisdiction to hear these matters; by a subsequent notification the adjustment of the territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court will not affect the pending proceeding as the Provincial Government can neither confer nor take away the jurisdiction given to a Labour Court, by the act itself nor by such notification the Government has purported to act as such." He also placed reliance on a Full Bench judgment of our High Court in the case, "Workers v. The Management, Sultan Textile Mills Ltd., Sargodha through, rise Managing Director and another" (1973 P L C 175). In that case a number of appeals under section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959, were filed and pending in the High Court when this Ordinance was in force. During the pendency of these appeals, Ordinance LVI of 1959 was repealed and replaced by the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, and later on this Ordinance itself was replaced by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The question which arose for decision was whether the High Court s jurisdiction to hear and dispose of the said pending appeals continued or not. To fiver this question a Full Bench was constituted. The Full Bench examined this question very carefully and after taking into consideration a large number of decided cases :‑ "Held, that the appeals could be heard and decided by the High Court. The right of appeal to the High Court accrued at the time the orders appealed against were passed or when the appeals were actually filed and this right was neither destroyed nor the proceedings of appeals abated nor were impaired in any other respect but rather they were expressly saved by the mandate that they shall continue." In view of the above, I accept the application and transfer this case; from Labour Court No. 3 to Labour Court No. 2.