1988 PLP 723 (PLC(CS))

Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Respondents Date oaf hearing: 18th January, 1988. This is an appeal challenging the order dated 7‑10‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala whereby the grievance petition of the appellants has been returned to them for presentation to the competent Court, holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction according to the notification dated 12‑3‑1987.

2. Previous to the notification referred to above, a notification dated 29‑1‑1986 was in force, according to which the present case was triable by learned Labour Court No.3, meaning thereby that at the time the grievance petition was presented, the learned Labour Court No.3 was competent to entertain and decide the same.

3. This is noteworthy that subsequent notification whereby the learned Labour Court No.3 ceased to have jurisdiction to decide cases like the one in hand, was not given retrospective effect. Every law is a prospective law unless expressly retrospective effect is given to it. According to old well known doctrine that state of things existing at the time of the institution of the suit determines the question of territorial jurisdiction," comes into play where retrospective effect has not been given to the law which has taken away the jurisdiction from the Court. Learned Lower Court has made reference to Order 7 Rule 10 C. B. A. but the same also does not warrant refusal to hear the case. Rule 10 applies if on the date of institution the suit was not triable by the Court to which it was presented. The rule reads as under:‑ "The plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted. " Since at the time the grievance petition in hand was lodged, the learned Lower Court No.3 had jurisdiction, Rule 10 of Order 7 C.P.C. is not attracted. However, where a Court lacks jurisdiction to hear a particular class of cases by any amendment or repeal of any law, the Court becomes incapable any longer to hear and decide those cases. Since otherwise the learned Court No.3 is competent to hear and decide cases brought under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, it cannot be said that it has ceased to have jurisdiction over the subject‑matter of the case. If a special forum is created for deciding a particular class of cases, the Courts which previously were competent to hear such cases cease to have jurisdiction over the subject‑matter and only the forum which has been authorised to hear such particular class of cases has jurisdiction and even the pending cases cannot be heard by the authorities to whom they were presented. P L D 1975 Lah. 841 also supports my view in this respect. It has been observed therein:‑ "The doctrine that the state of things existing at the time of the institution of the suit is sufficient to determine the jurisdiction has no application where the question is one of jurisdiction over the subject‑matter. Such jurisdiction must exist throughout the proceedings." As observed above since learned Labour Court No.3 otherwise is competent to decide Labour cases it has jurisdiction over the subject ?matter of the lis and thus is competent to decide the case in hand since at the time it was instituted the said Court had territorial jurisdiction. Of course if in the subsequent notification a direction had been issued that pending cases would be transferred to the Court which by means of the said notification had been given territorial jurisdiction, the learned Labour Court No.3 would have ceased to have jurisdiction to decide even pending cases.

4. As a result the appeal is accepted and setting aside the impugned order the case is sent back to learned Labour Court No.3 for final decision. Nemo for the parties. A.E. /494/Lb.P ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal accepted.