1982 PLP 996 (PLC(CS))

Date of hearing: 23rd February, 1982. The record and proceedings in complaint case No. 9 of 1981, which was originally filed before the vacation Judge (First Labour Court) and on the close of vacation was sent to the Court having jurisdiction (Fourth Labour Court), was summoned in the exercise of the suo motu powers of revision of this Tribunal to examine the legality, correctness and propriety of the following order passed by the learned First Labour Court:- "Heard both the learned counsel in detail. Intricate questions of law have been raised and discussed. Since I am only vacation Judge and after two days Court will start functioning, hence it deems proper that the Court of competent jurisdiction should decide this matter on merits. The parties are therefore, directed to appear before Labour Court No. IV, on 4th January, 1982. The accused are, however, directed not to take any further action against the complainant party till any further order is passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Sd/ Presiding Officer, First Sind Labour Court, Karachi."

2. The Complaint by workman, Anwar Mohammad Khan, against the National Construction Limited and four of its Officers was filed during vacation on 28th December, 1981. The learned First Labour Court ordered notice to issue to the parties but it appears that the office, through inadvertance or otherwise, issued summons to the accused. This lapse on the part of the office needs to be deprecated. As the learned First Labour. Court had decided not to hear the parties, being only vacation Judge and be found intricate question of law were raised, I am of the view that the learned Labour Court ought not to have issued a direction staying further action against the complainant party at least without hearing the parties in this behalf which appears not to have been done. It is the right of the employer to hold a domestic enquiry against any workman who is alleged to have committed a misconduct and Labour Courts should be slow to interfere with the exercise of that right. Of 4 course: if the holding of the enquiry is found to be mala fide or in contra vention of any provision of law or there are other cogent reasons for order should be passed. Since, in the instant case, none of the above circumstances had even been indicated, the direction to the management not to take further action would appear to be, to say the least, inappro priate. I have already suspended the operation of this order and would now set aside the same.

3. Mr. Sulaiman Habibullah, the learned representative for complai nant Anwar Mohammad Khan, however, submitted that this Tribunal's order suspending the direction given by the learned First Labour Court prohibiting the management from taking further action against the complainant party, is in excess of its jurisdiction and powers under sub clause (3a) of section 38, I.R.O. His argument was that the passing of the said order has caused to prejudice the complainant party and hence it could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the complainant party as required by the proviso to subsection (3a), Apart from the fact that Mr. Sulaiman Habibullah was unable to point out what specific prejudice was caused to the complainant party, the operation of the direction was only suspended and no final orders in this behalf were passed. Instead notices were issued to the parties to show cause why the order should not be revised in the exercise of the suo motu powers of this Tribunal. I, therefore, find no substance in this contention of Mr. Sulaiman Habibullah.

4. There is another point involved in these proceedings which dserves consideration. It was submitted by Mr. Naeem Bukhari that there was some dispute as to the Labour Court which has jurisdiction in the matter. This dispute has arisen by reason of the fact that whereas the Head Office of the National Construction Limited is within the jurisdiction of Labour Court No. V, the project in connection with which the complaint of Anwar Mohammad Khan was filed, is within the jurisdiction of Labour Court No, IV. Mr. Sulaiman Habibullah submitted that since the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of Labour Court No. IV it has jurisdiction in the matter. I am inclined to agree with him In any case, to order to eliminate further controversy in this behalf as also lingering on doubts, I would direct the case to be proceeded with by the learned Fourth Labour Court. This order, it is clarified, is being passed by this Tribunal in the exercise of its powers under subsection (7) of section 38, I.R.O. The record and proceedings of the case should be returned to the learned Fourth Labour Court for disposal and passing appropriate orders.