1984 PLP 712 (SCMR)

NASIM HASAN SHAH. J.‑The question involved in this appeal is whether the Labour Court No. IV, Karachi, could not entertain the appli cation under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance filed before it by respondent No. 2 on the ground that it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to do so and if so, whether the proceedings ‑before it are coram non judice ? Respondent No. 2 was employed by the Sind Alkalis Limited (the appel lant herein) and was working throughout in their factory situated at Landhi. He was ordered on 9‑8‑1980 to be transferred to the Head Office of the Company, which is situated at the State Life Building, I. I. Chundrigar Road. Karachi within the territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court No. V. Im mediately thereafter he was ordered to be transferred to Lahore, which orders he allegedly avoided to comply with and was dismissed from service by the order of the Managing Director of the Company, dated 9th May, 1981. This order was challenged by him under section 25‑A of the Industrial Rela tions Ordinance before the Labour Court No. IV. According to the appellant‑Company, only she Labour Court No. V had jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance as the Head Office of the Company is located within the territorial jurisdiction of the said Labour Court. While, according to the respondents, the Labour Court No IV could also entertain it, since the subordinate office of the appellant's Company, (namely, its Factory), wherein he had worked throughout, was situate within the territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court No. IV. The question as to which of the two Labour Courts, namely, the Labour Court, in whose territorial jurisdiction the Head Office is situate (i.e. Labour Court No. V, or the Labour Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the Factory is situate, had the jurisdiction to entertain the application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance or whether, in the circum stances of this case, both of them concurrently had the jurisdiction in the matter, i3 a question of some delicacy. Considering, however, that the objection as to the territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court No. 1V to entertain the application was raised by the Company with inordinate delay, in that it was neither raised in the reply statement nor when the proceedings commenced, wherein the Company contested the claim of the respondents on the merits and fully participated in the proceedings, by cross‑examination respondent No. 2 and his witnesses and even by producing its own evidence, and that the matter by now is ripe for decision ; this case does not appear to be a suitable one for deciding the question raised before us that the proceedings started in the Labour Court No. IV, which allegedly did not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain them, are coram non judice. We would, accordingly, rescind the order, dated 15‑12‑1982 granting leave to appeal in the case. The result 'of withdrawal of this order as that this appeal stands automatically dismissed. M.Z. M. Appeal dismissed.