Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. KAR‑859 of 1980, decided on 14th January, 1981.

‑‑ S. 35‑Jurisdiction‑Question‑Can be agitated at any stage -Head Office of establishment at K ‑Workman employed originally at K transferred to L‑Dismissed due to misconduct while posted at L‑Grievance petition, held, rightly not entertained by Labour Court, K for want of jurisdiction‑Jurisdiction issue not challenged by respondent‑Immaterial.

Mazhar Ali Chohan for Appellant.

Date of hearing :14th January, 1981.

The appellant, who was originally employed as a Mechanic at the Karachi office of the respondent‑Company was transferred from Karachi to Lahore in April, 1979. He was, however, charge‑sheeted for remaining absent from duty at the Lahore office with effect from 28th July, 1979. On the basis of the Enquiry Officer's report, the appellant was dismissed from service with effect from 11th November, 1979. The appellant challenged the orders of his dismissal from service before the learned Vth Labour Court, which has dismissed the appellant's grievance petition on the ground that since the appellant was employed at Lahore at the relevant time, the Labour Court Karachi has no jurisdiction in the matter. In coming to this decision, the learned Labour Court has relied upon the decisions of this Tribunal in the cases of P. I. D. C. v. Khadim Hussain and Mohammad Sharif v. PICIC. The latter case was decided by this Tribunal on 17th September, 1980. The facts of the latter case are substantially similar to those of the present case. In that case. as in the preset case, the aggrieved worker was transferred from Heat/ Office at Karachi to the Branch Office of the PICIC at Quetta. His dismissal orders were also issued by the Head Office at Karachi. He challenged the orders of dismissal before the learned Labour Court at Karachi. Relying on its earlier decision in the case of P.I.D.C., this Tribunal held that it made no material difference that the Head Office of the PICIC was at Karachi and the orders of the workman's dismissal were issued from Karachi, for the PICIC Office at Quetta was separate establishment and the case of the workmen employed at the Quetta Office fell within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in Baluchistan.

2. Mr. Mazhar Ali Chohan, the learned counsel for the appellant, sought to distinguish the instant case from the case of Muhammad Sharif, on the footing that in the reply statement, the respondents had not challenged the jurisdiction of the Courts at Karachi. That may be so, but since the question of jurisdiction goes to the very root of the jurisdiction may be challenged at any stage. Since clearly the Courts at Karachi had no jurisdiction in the matter, the appellant's grievance petition is not maintainable by any of the Courts at Karachi.

3. For the reasons discussed by me above, I would uphold the deci sion of the learned Labour Court and dismiss this appeal in limine.

Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.