1995 PLP 576 (PLC)

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 36‑‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Labour Court challenged‑‑‑Labour Court bound to record findings on point of jurisdiction before deciding case. A. Rashid Malik for Appellant. Abdul Khaliq for Respondent. Date of hearing: 3rd June, 1986. The decision dated 3‑3‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9 Multan has been challenged, whereby the respondent has been directed to be reinstated in service with back benefits.

2. The respondent was bill supervisor in Grade‑

16. His services were terminated on 6‑1‑1980 by way of screening him out. The respondent went to the N.I.R.C. but the petition was not allowed on the ground of lack of jurisdiction following PLD 1982 SC

103. In the written statement it was pleaded that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) was applicable, therefore, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction. The learned lower Court has held that in the absence of any forum, the respondent logically had no alternative but to have recourse to the Labour Court. The learned lower Court has also held that the Act has not provided any forum to entertain the grievance petitions for reinstatement, therefore, the Labour Court had jurisdiction. These finding, are against the observations made by the Supreme Court in PLD 1982 SC

103. The case from which the said authority arose was of dismissal and the prayer was for reinstatement, but the Supreme Court held that the forum was as provided in section 7(5) of the Act. Sindh High Court has, following the said ruling of the Supreme Court, held so. Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that no such notification has been brought on the record, which may show that at the time the services of the respondent were terminated, the Act stood applicable to the appellant‑Company. This is true but since the respondent had himself gone to the N.I.R.C. for getting redress thinking that under the Act, N.I.R.C. had jurisdiction, it cannot now be allowed to plead that the appellant failed to show that the Act was applicable when order of termination was passed. The respondent did not challenge the order of the N.I.R.C. and, therefore, is bound by it. The N.I.R.C. held that it had no jurisdiction since the Act was applicable and has held in PLD 1982 SC 103, the N:I.R.C. had no jurisdiction. In the presence of this finding, the respondent is debarred from raising the objection that the Act is not applicable.

3. It has been argued by learned counsel for the appellant that by making a miscellaneous application an objection was raised before the learned lower Court that the appellant was a civil servant but the learned lower Court has not recorded any finding thereon. Learned counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand argued that such an objection could be taken in the written statement by amending it with the permission of the Court and that on a miscellaneous application such' a point could not be entertained. Before deciding the case it is the duty of every functionary first to decide whether it has jurisdiction. Since the jurisdiction of the learned lower Court had been challenged, it was necessary for' the learned lower Court to record finding thereon. But since I have held that the Labour Court has no jurisdiction in such matters and only the Authority mentioned in section 7(5) of the Act is competent as held by the Supreme Court, it is useless to remand the case for decision of this point.

4. As a result of the observations made above, the appeal is accepted and holding that the learned Labour Court had no jurisdiction, the grievance petition is directed to be returned to him for presentation to the proper forum. A.E./193/Lb.P Appeal accepted.