Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 5268 of 1983, decided on 7th April, 1984.

---S. 35--Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art.9-- Constitutional jurisdiction Invocation in labour cases--Matter relating to territorial jurisdiction Objection raised before Labour Court that lacked territorial jurisdiction--Labour Court assuming jurisdiction without deciding objection--Labour Appellate Tribunal on reference of transfer application again sending case to same Labour Court without hearing petitioner (who raised such objection before Labour Court)--Plea that proceedings before a Court lacking territorial jurisdiction are void ab initio as such coram non judice--Objection that matter having not been finally decided and yet awaiting final decision by Labour Court constitutional petition was premature--Overruled--High Court, in circumstances setting aside impugned order of Labour Appellate Tribunal and case remanded to Appellate Tribunal with direction to first deal with application of petitioner for transfer of case on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court because unless a Court/Tribunal has necessary territorial jurisdiction its order bound to be without lawful authority.

Messrs Muhammad Yousuf Iqbal Ahmad v. IVth Sind Labour Court, Karachi and another P L D 1977 Kar. 711 and Pakistan and another v. M. Faiz Ahmad P L D 1979 Notes 76 ref.

Asad Munir for Petitioner.

Faiz M. Sadiq for Respondent No.1.

Date of hearing: 15th February, 1984.

National Fertilizer Marketing Limited, through its Managing Director, has filed this petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981. They have challenged the orders, dated 21-9-1983, 12-10-1983 and 12-9-1983, passed by the Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore, respondents Nos. 2 and 3, respectively. The other respondent in this petition is Munawar Ahmad Sadiq, an employee of the petitioner-Company.

The petitioners are a public limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1913. It is controlled and managed by the Federal Government. They deal with distribution, marketing and sale of Chemical Fertilizer throughout the country.

Munawar Ahmad Sadiq, respondent No.1, was employed as an Accounts Assistant. On 3-11-1980, he was charge-sheeted for being absent from duty without leave, for more than one month as well as for willful disobedience of lawful and proper orders.

Petitioners' case is that a proper enquiry was held; charge was proved as a result of which respondent No.1 was dismissed from service on 25-2-1981.

Respondent No.1 challenged the dismissal. He filed petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before Punjab Labour Court No.2. The petitioners filed their reply. When the case was at evidence stage, the petitioner-Company submitted an application in the Punjab Labour Court No.2, in which objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of the Court was raised. This was in view of Notification No. S.O.(LAB-VI) 3/4-/3, dated 24-2-1977.

On 27-2-1982, the Labour Court dismissed that application. The petitioners thereafter applied for amendment of reply, dated 18-6-1981 by adding preliminary objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of respondent No.3. This application was contested by respondent No.1 whose stance was that respondent No.3 had the necessary territorial jurisdiction to decide the petition. However, the amendment was allowed by respondent No.3 by awarding costs of one thousand rupees to respondent No.1. The petitioners paid the costs and filed the amended reply. In the amended reply, the objection was incorporated thus;--

"That by virtue of Notification No. SO(LAB-VI) 3/4-/3 Vol. II, dated 24th February, 1977, issued under section 35 of I.R.O., 1969, this Hon'ble Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain or to proceed with the petition not only because the cause of action has arisen in an area outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court but also because the respondent-Company is not situated within the territorial limits of this Hon'ble Court."

On 16-5-1982, respondent No.1 gave an application to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 36-C of Industrial Relations Ordinance. He requested the Appellate Tribunal that either the case be transferred under section 36-C (b) of I.R.O., 1969 or Labour Court No.2 be ordered to proceed and finalize the matter.

On 6-7-1982, respondent No.1 withdrew the transfer application. Thereafter the parties closed their evidence.

On 23-4-1983, arguments were heard from both sides and respondent No.3 fixed 22-5-1983 for the announcement of the judgment. Before that could be done, another application on 23-6-1983 under section 38(7) of I.R.O., 1969, was filed by respondent No.1 before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal.

The respondent No.1 prayed that Labour Court No.2 be allowed "to decide the case of the application on transfer to it and if it had the jurisdiction under the directions and order of this Hon'ble Court."

This application was dismissed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 7-9-1983. On 12-9-1983, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.2, forwarded the case to the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal for "passing orders for transfer of this case to the Court having territorial jurisdiction namely, Labour Court No.1 or any other Court which the learned Tribunal may deem fit".

Respondent No.2, on 21-9-1983, passed the following order:--

"As reported by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No.2, the case is assigned to the same Court to avoid inconvenience to both the parties."

This order was passed ex parte qua the petitioners. Therefore, on 24-9-1983, they filed an application for recalling of the aforesaid order. On 12-10-1983 respondent No.2 dismissed the application. Hence this petition.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners raise only one contention. That was that the proceedings before a Court which lacks territorial jurisdiction are void ab initio as such coram non judice. Learned counsel submitted that if a statute does not invest n particular Court or a Tribunal with the necessary territorial jurisdiction then such jurisdiction cannot be given by the Appellate Authority. It was further submitted that the matter having come before the Labour Appellate Tribunal, the Tribunal as such was bound to grant hearing to the parties and then decide the petition in accordance with law. Respondent No.2 was not competent to send the case back to the same Court regarding whose territorial jurisdiction an objection had been raised.

I have heard learned counsel for respondent No.1. He has also filed written statement. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that the matter having not been finally decided this petition is premature.

Learned counsel then cited the case of Messrs Muhammad Yousuf Iqbal Ahmad v. IVth Sind Labour Court, Karachi and another P L D 1977 Kar. 711 and Pakistan and another v. M. Faiz Ahmad P L D 1979 Notes at p. 76. He submitted that the decision even if it is erroneous either in law or on factual side, is not to be interfered with by this Court unless it is without lawful authority.

I am constrained to observe that the applications moved by the parties off and on contained very vague prayers. Language was not clear. Perhaps this may be the reason that even the impugned orders are ambiguous. However, one thing is established from the record and that is that objection was taken with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of respondent No.3. This objection was not only important but it went to the very root of the matter. Unless a Court/Tribunal has the necessary territorial jurisdiction, its order is bound to be without lawful authority.

For the foregoing reasons, the case is sent to respondent No .21 with a direction that he shall first deal with the application of the petitioner, dated 24-9-1983 and decide the same afresh in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.

No order as to costs.

A. E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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