1976 PLP 669 (PLC)

JAHANDAD KHAN Petition No. 164 of 1973, decided on 30th April 1973. - -- S. 20(a) - Jurisdiction - Company having bead office at A and site at place B

Labour Courts at both places, held, have jurisdic tion-Workman working at site claiming wages. held, could approach Labour Court either at place of site or head office. Messrs Evergoinwest, appellant, has come up in appeal against the deci sion dated 14-3-1973 delivered by Mr. M. A. Razzaq, Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the petitioner of the respondent was accepted and the appellant was ordered to pay difference between the pay which the respondent use to get from the appellant and the pay which he had been getting in the military while re-called on active service. The objection taken in the appeal is that the Lahore Labour Courts have no jurisdiction, because the respondent was posted at Muzaffargarh before he went on active service and was again posted there when he was discharged from the military. Admittedly the Head Office is at Lahore and at Muzaffargarh is only the site Office. The prayer of the petitioner is only for the payment of difference in the pay which he was getting in the appellant-Company and in the military, ad hoc relief, overtime, house rent allowance, medical allowance and bonus. The cause of grievance could arise to the respondent when the amounts claimed by him were refused. If the cause of grievance accrued to the respondent at Muzaffargarh, the Junior Labour Court, Muzaffargarh, had jurisdiction but since admittedly the Head Office is at Lahore, according to section 20 clause (a) the Lahore Courts have also jurisdiction. It was therefore, sweet will of the respondent to bring action either at Muzaffargarh, or at Lahore and if he chose the Lahore forum, it cannot be said that the Lahore Labour Courts have no territorial jurisdiction. From the record does not appear when the respondent conveyed the decision to the appellant that be was not entitled to the benefits claimed by him, so it is doubtful if the Muzaffargarh Labour Court has jurisdiction but since admittedly the Head Office is at Lahore and at Muzaffargarh is only site office which cannot be said to be a branch or a regular office, only the Lahore Courts have jurisdiction. I, therefore, agree with the learned lower Court that it had territorial jurisdiction to hear the case. So far as the question of recovery of the difference of pay between the one the respondent was receiving as civilian from the appellant and the one which he had been receiving from the military while on active service, letter P. B. is quite clear and the appellant is liable in pay the difference which amounts to Rs.

210. The respondent pay was Rs. 400 when be was serving the appellant but he was paid Rs. 190 per month only during the period be remained on active service. According to letter P. C. he is entitled to ad hoc relief 10% amounting to Rs.

40. So he is entitled to Rs. 250 from the period he relinquished charge in the appellant concern and when he reported on duty. He is entitled to house rent and medical allowance also. If bonus was given to other employees, he is also entitled to the same for the said period. The lower Court has allowed Rs. 500 more but has not given any reason for it. I, therefore, hold that the respondent is entitled only to the difference of pay 10% ad hoc relief, house rent and medical allowance and bonus if allowed to the other workers. I modify the order of the lower Court accordingly and accept the appeal only to this extent.