1987 PLP 764 (PLC)

‑‑‑ Precedents‑‑Rule for. The normal rule as to the precedents is, that subordinate courts are bound in the absence of any decision,, of the Supreme Court, to follow the decision of the High Court to which they are subordinate. Where, however, there is a conflict between two decisions of the High Court, the rule to be adopted is as follows:‑ "Where the conflict is between the judgment of a Single Judge and a Bench or between Bench and a larger Bench, the decision of the Bench or the larger Bench, as the case may be will have to be followed. But where the conflict is between two decisions both pronounced by a Bench consisting of the same number of Judges and the subordinate Court after a careful examination of the decisions came to the conclusion that both of them directly apply to the case before it, it will then be at liberty to follow that decision which seems to it more correct‑, whether such decision to be later or the earlier one." M.L. Shahani for Applicant (in Application No. 2 of 1985). Masood Ahmad Khan for Respondent. Mahmood A. Ghani, Representative for Respondents (in Application No.79/85). Since common question of law is involved in both these applications they are being disposed of by this consolidated order.

2. The sole point for determination in both these applications is as to whether the Labour Court constituted under section 35 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, or the National Industrial Relations Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate, cases of workers employed in the Nationalized Banks and Financial Institutions for redress of their individual grievance guaranteed under) any law.

3. Jurisdiction consists in taking cognizance of a case involving the determination of some jural relation in ascertaining the essential points of it and in pronouncing upon them. In other words, it means the legal authority to administer justice according to the means which the law has provided and subject to the limitations imposed by the law upon the judicial authority. The' power and jurisdiction of a Labour Court to decide a particular matter is to be derived from the law itself, but where the provisions of law are not clear, recourse will have to be made to the precedents which enunciate rules of law forming the foundation of administration of justice under one system. There are, however, conflicting decisions of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, High Court of Sind and High Court of Punjab, on this issue and the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court of Pakistan for an authoritative decision.

4. The normal rule as to the precedents is, that subordinate Courts are bound in the absence of any decision of the Supreme Court, to follow the decision of the High Court to which they are subordinate. Where, however, there is a conflict between two decisions of the High Court, the rule to be adopted is as follows:‑ "Where the conflict is between the judgment of a Single Judge and a Bench or between Bench and a larger Bench, the decision of the Bench or the larger Bench, as the case may be will have to be followed. But where the conflict is between two decisions both pronounced by a Bench consisting of the same number of Judges and the subordinate Court after a careful examination of the decisions came to the conclusion that both of them directly apply to the case before it, it will then be a: liberty to follow that decision which seems to it more correct whether such decision to be later or the earlier one." (Field's Law of Evidence)

5. Respectfully following the decisions of Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.IiYD‑115/85, elated 14‑11‑1886, 1984 P L C 493; 1984 P L C 864 and 1983 P L C 468, and the rulings .of Sind High Court in Constitution Petition No.D‑3/1986, dated 2‑9‑1986 and the case reported in 1984 P L C 276, 1 am of the view that the Labour Courts have got jurisdiction to entertain applications of this nature under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. which view will be open to correction in case the Supreme Court, upsets the above decisions. A. E./974/Lb.S. Orders accordingly.