1982 PLP 102 (PLC)

Syed Izhar Ahmed for Appellant. Riffat Osmani for Respondents. Date of bearing: 28thSeptember 1981. The appellant, who was recruited in the National Construction Limited, the respondents herein, as Assistant in 1974 and promoted to the rank of a Procurement Officer in the said company, was discharged from service with immediate effect vide letter, dated 18th December, 1979, issued by the General Manager, Personnel arid Administration, of the respondent Company. The appellant challenged the order of termination of his Services through a grievance petition filed before the learned Fifth Labour Court, which has dismissed his grievance petition holding that it had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. This finding was given to the basis that the appellant was employee in areas outside the territorial, jurisdiction of the Labour Court and consequently his grievance would not be dealt with by it. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant has come up in appeal to this Tribunal.

2. I have heard Mr. Syed Izhar Ahmad, the learned representative counsel for the appellant, and Mr. Riffat Osmani, who appeared for the respondent‑Company. For the purposes of ascertaining whether the appellant was borne on the Company's establishment based at Karachi or a separate establishment based outside the Province of Sind I examined Mr. Iqbal Badar‑e‑Alam, the General Manager, Administration, of the respondent‑Company.

3. The contention of Mr. Syed Izhar Ahmed is that since the appellant was recruited at Karachi and his various orders of transfer and posting had been issued from Karachi, therefore, the Labour Court at Karachi is competent to deal with the matter. On the other hand, the contention of Mr. Riffat Osmani is that as the appellant was posted in, an establishment outside the Province of Sind, the view taken by the learned Labour Court that the Courts in this Province have no jurisdiction in the matter is unassailable. In further support of his argument Mr. Riffat Osmani has filed the Administrative Chart of the respondent‑Company. The Chart discloses that besides the Managing Director who is in over all charge of the Company, there are four Executive Directors, in addition to the General Manager (Inspection). The four Executive Directors are (1) Executive Director (Finance), (2) Executive Director (Administration), (3) Executive Director (Engineering) (North) and (4) Executive Director (Engineering) (South). All these Executive Directors including the General Manager (Inspection) are based at the Company's Head Office. However, while the Executive Director (Finance) the Executive Director (Administration) and the General Manager (Inspection) deal with the over all matters of the respondent‑Company pertaining to their fields, the Executive Director (Engineering) (North) is incharge of the Company's Works in the Northern part of Pakistan mainly located in the Provinces of N.‑W.F.P. and Punjab; while. The Executive Director (Engineering), (South) is responsible for the Company's works located mainly in the Provinces of Sind and Baluchistan.

4. In order to examine the contending submissions of the learned counsel for the parties it would appear necessary to refer to the various orders regarding the recruitment, posting, transfer and promotion of the appellant. The appellant was initially recruited, as already pointed out, as Procurement Assistant for PAEC Project, Kundian, vide letter, dated 15th October, 1974. This order was issued from the Head Office of the company at Karachi. Subsequently, by the letter, dated 25th May, 1977, the appellant was promoted as Assistant Procurement Officer. This latter order was also from the Head Office at Karachi. The said order suggests that the appellant was to be attached to the Small Hydel Power Station Project, Islamabad, to New Laboratories Project, Nilore. On his promotion as Procurement Officer the Managing Director wrote a personal letter to the appellant indicating that by reason of his promotion greater zeal and devotion was expected from him. However by order, dated 28thMay, 1979, issued over the signature of General Manager (Personnel and Administration), the services of the appellant was termi nated on the ground that the same were no longer required. It was explained by witness Tqba1 Badar.e‑Alam, the General Manager of the respondents‑Company, that though this letter was issued from Islamabad the Officer signing the said order is based at Karachi and also had a camp office at Islamabad. The said order of termination of services of the appellant wag withdrawn by Office Order, dated 10th June, 1979. This order, as explained by witness Badar‑e‑Alam, was issued under the authority of the same Officer who had by his earlier order, dated 28th May, 1979, terminated the services of the appellant. It may. however, lie pointed out that there is nothing on record to show on what ground the order terminating the services of the appellant had, been cancelled. Even Mr. Iqbal Badar‑e‑Alam, the General Manager of the Company, was not able to throw any light on this aspect of the matter. By sub sequent Office Order, dated 11thJune, 1979, the appellant was trans ferred from Hydel Power Station Project, Islamabad, to Karachi. Again by Office Order, dated 25th June, 1979, the transfer of the appellant from Islamabad to Karachi was held in abeyance. Both these orders were issued from Karachi by the General Manager, Personnel and Adminis tration. Subsequent to the issuance of the last order, a Committee of Enquiry was constituted to conduct a formal enquiry into the allegations of misconduct against the appellant. The findings of the Enquiry Com 1hittee were submitted to the Executive Director of the respondent com pany at Karachi and he recommended termination of services of the appellant. The case was then put up to the Managing Director who agreeing with the recommendation of the Executive Director ordered the termination of services of the appellant. In consequence of this office, direction the appellant's services were terminated, vide order, dated 18thDecember, 1979, stating the appellant's services were no longer required. From the recital of the above facts it is clear that not only was the appellant recruited at Karachi but all the orders regarding his postings add transfers, excepting the order regarding his transfer from Small Hydel Power Station Project, Islamabad, to New Laboratories Project, were issued from Karachi. It has been explained by Mr. Iqbal Badar e‑Alam that the Regional Officer at Islamabad was competent to issue the transfer order as it involved change of duty and transfer of the Officer within the Region. Finally, the orders of termination of services of the appellant were issued from the Head Office at Karachi which had examined the case of the appellant and had taken the view that he was guilty of misconduct. Since the appellant has all along been dealt with in all material matters by the Head Office at Karachi and the appellant company appears to have merely temporary construction projects at different places in the country, to which any personnel of the Company could be attached from time to time, I am of the view that, notwithstand ing the temporary posting of the appellant, and the assignment of duties to him in the northern parts of Pakistan, the effective control over the employment of the appellant continued to remain with the Head Office at Karachi, which was his real employer, and hence it is the Labour Courts at Karachi which have jurisdiction in the matter, particularly as the grievance of the appellant is against the termination of his services, which was ordered by the Head Office at Karachi. This view finds further support from the fact that before the termination of his services the appellant had in fact been transferred to Karachi, vide Office Order, dated 11th June, 1979, which order had not been cancelled but merely kept in abeyance by the order, dated 25th June, 1979.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would set aside the impugned order of the learned Labour Court and since the case has been decided on the preliminary point of jurisdiction only, I would remand the case to the learned Fifth Labour Court for decision of the case on merit, Case remained,