The Labor Appellate Tribunal passed the Labor Court Appeal Tribunal against the passage of the final order by the Labor Court, pressing the case against the Labor Court Appeal Tribunal, which passed the territorial jurisdiction of sections 25A, 35 and 38 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. ??? A pending transfer request was disposed of by Labor Court B during the appellate tribunal's writ petition challenging the High Court that the entire proceeding before Labor Court B was non-judgmental and accepted Disqualification order to High Court writ jurisdictional interim constitutional order (IK 1981), Article 9
1983 P L C 1284
[Lahore
High Court]
Before Irshad Hasan Khan, J LAHORE
DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Versus
LABOUR COURT No. 1 LAHORE
AND OTHERS Writ Petition No. 5/63 of 1981, decided on 26th March, 1983.
(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ ‑‑‑ Ss. 25‑A, 35 & 38‑Territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court Labour Appellate Tribunal passing injunctive order against passing of final order by Labour Court "A" pending disposal of transfer application pressed on ground that matter fell within jurisdiction of Labour Court "B"‑Order passed by Labour Court "B" during operation of such order of Appellate Tribunal challenged by writ petition before High Court on plea that entire proceedings before Labour Court "B" were coram non judice ‑ Plea accepted and impugned order set aside by High Court‑Writ jurisdiction Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9.
Sind Employees' Social Security Institution v. Dr. Mumtaz Ali Taj and another P L D 1975 S C 450 rel.
(b) Industrial dispute‑ ‑‑ Res judicata‑Grievance petition before Labour Court on same cause of action on which a writ petition earlier dismissed on merits, held, barred by principle of res judicata.
(c) West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑
‑‑‑ S. 1 (4), proviso read with Lahore Development Authority Act (XXX of 1975), Chaps. III, I V & V ‑Lahore Development Authority‑‑‑Whether falls under first proviso to S. I (4) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and not within its ambit‑[Quaere]
Karachi Development Authority v. Presiding Officer, Vth Sind Labour Court P L D 1976 Kar. 514 ref.
Saleem Baig for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 26th March, 1983.
JUDGMENT This writ petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, calls in question the judgment, dated 24th November, 1981 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this petition are that respon dent No. 3 was employed as Sui Gas Engine Operator in the Lahore Development Authority (Water and Sanitation Agency), (hereinafter called the L. D. A. WASA). In 1979 he was charge‑sheeted for misconduct on the allegations of misappropriation of public funds and embezzlement, etc. His reply to the charge‑sheet was not found satisfactory. An inquiry was held into his conduct. He was found guilty by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, second show‑cause notice was also served on him alongwith inquiry report. His explanation was again found unsatisfactory. Even tually he was dismissed from service on 28th May, 1980. Respondent No. 3 challenged his dismissal order before this Court by means of W. P. 4962/80, which was dismissed in limine by order dated 3rd June, 1980 passed by my learned brother S. A. Salam, J. 'Notwithstanding this the petitioner moved the Labour Court under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, for the redress of his grievance. The petitioner specifically raised preliminary objection in his written statement vide para. 3 as to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that on the same cause of action the writ petition filed by respondent No. 3 was earlier dis missed by this Court. The Labour Court failed to advert to this question and instead by order dated 13th October; 1980 accepted the application of respondent No. 3 and directed him to be re‑instated with back benefits. This order was upheld in appeal by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide judgment dated 24th November, 1981.
3. It may be observed that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court No. 1, the petitioner applied to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal for the transfer of the case to Labour Court No. 11, whereupon the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal by order, dated 1st September, 1980, directed that no final order shall be passed by the Labour Court No. 1, pending disposal of the transfer application. Not. withstanding this order, the Labour Court No. 1 decided the petition of respondent No. 3 on merits.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the entire pro ceedings before the Labour Court were coram non judice in that it had no territorial jurisdiction to deal with the case. Firstly, the matter fell within the jurisdiction of Labour Court No. III and secondly, because he was restrained from passing any final order by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, in the transfer application. This contention finds support from the dictum laid down in Sind Employees Social Security Institution v. Dr. Mumtaz Ali Taj and another (P L D 1975 S C 450). On this short ground alone, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.
5. It is next contended that the petition filed before the Labour Court was barred by the principle of res judicata, in that, the writ petition on the same cause of action was earlier dismissed on merits by this Court. There is great force in this submission. I am also inclined to take this view.
6. Finally, it is submitted that the Labour Court as well as, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, have set aside the order of dismissal primarily on the ground that the charge‑sheet served on the petitioner was barred by time as envisaged by Standing Order 15 (4) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. It is submitted that WASH is partly controlled directly and partly indirectly by the Government. The very appointment and terms of office of the Director‑General are determined by the Government under Chapter III of the Act, the preparation and execution of the schemes is subject to the approval of the Government under Chapter IV of the Act; the Authority is bound by the directions by the Government in the discharge of its functions under Chapter V of the Act, the finance accounts and audit is to be conducted in the manner as may be directed by the Government and, therefore, the learned Chairman of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal fell into an error in holding that the L. D. A. was not acting under the control of the Government. He further submitted that the phrase carried out by or under the authority of the Government' means carrying on func tions directly or indirectly under the authority of the Government. In support of his interpretation of words 'by' or under' reliance was placed on Karachi Development Authority v. Presiding Officer Vth Sind Labour Court (P L D 1976 Kar. 514). Prima facie there appears to be great force in this contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I would, however, refrain from expressing any considered view on this aspect of the mattes as no one has appeared to contest the case on behalf of the respondents despite service. This question is of far‑reaching consequence as to the relationship between the employer and employees of L. D. A. This question would, therefore, be dealt with in some other appropriate case.
In view of the above, the impugned order of the Labour Court, dated 13th October, 1980, as well as, dated 24th November, 1981 of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal are hereby declared as without lawful autho rity and of no legal effect. The writ petition is accepted with no‑ order as to costs.
Petition accepted.
