1. ' MUHAMMAD MOOSA K. LEGHARI, J---This appeal is directed against the order dated 25-11-2004, passed by learned Presiding Officer Labour Court No,VI, Hyderabad, whereby the grievance petition of the respondent was allowed and he was directed to be reinstated in service with all back- benefits.
2. ' The admitted facts are that the respondent was serving as Assistant in the Kandiaro Branch of the Appellant/Bank. A charge-sheet was issued to him by Regional Manager, Nawabash on the allegations of misconduct. The reply submitted by the respondent was found to be unsatisfactory and, therefore, it was decided to hold an inquiry. Accordingly the Regional Manager, Regional Office Nawabshah, appointed an Inquiry officer vide letter of Inquiry dated 8-12-1992. The inquiry was conducted in presence of the respondent and report was submitted to Regional Manager. On the basis of the report of Inquiry Officer the Regional Manager dismissed the Appellant from service vide order dated 6-11-1998.
3. ' Feeling aggrieved with his dismissal, the respondent after service of grievance notice filed an application before the Labour Court under Section 25-A of I.R.O.
4. 1969. The respondents filed their objection and the reply statement. Besides other objections a legal objection was raised with regard to the territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court No,VI, at Hyderabad. The parties lead evidence and on the basis of the evidence recorded before the Labour Court, the impugned order was passed.
5. ' With the consent of the Advocates for the parties the appeal has been heard and disposed of at Katcha Peshi stage.
6. ' Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant besides contesting the impugned order on merits raised the legal objection with regard to territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court, the competence of the Labour Court to adjudicate the matter and certain other objections.
7. ' Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent relying upon 1995 PLC 57, submitted that since the office of the General Manager of the Bank was situated at Hyderabad, the Labour Court at Hyderabad, had also the concurrent jurisdiction.
8. ' Learned Additional A.G. Also supported the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent stating that the Court at Hyderabad possessed the territorial jurisdiction.
9. ' Arguments rendered have been considered and the material placed on the record has been perused.
10. ' It is an admitted position that at the relevant time, when the alleged misconduct was committed the applicant was posted at Kandiaro/Nawabshah, as such, the charge-sheet was served upon him by the Regional Manager, Nawabshah. The explanation/reply to the charge sheet was submitted by him to Regional Manager, Regional Office Nawabshah. The letter of Inquiry was also issued by Regional Manager at Nawabshah. The Inquiry was conducted at Nawabshah. Finally the dismissal order was also communicated to the respondent by Regional Manager, Nawabshah.
11. ' At the initial stage objection to the territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court Hyderabad, was raised by the respondent. However, learned Labour Court while discussing the point of territorial jurisdiction observed that since the contents of the dismissal order show that it was issued with the consultation of the General Mannger who was stationed at Hyderabad, thus the Labour Court at Hyderabad would have the jurisdiction. I am afraid such view taken by the Labour Court could not be sustained in the circumstances of the case, more particularly on account of the admitted facts mentioned herein above.
12. ' It may further be pointed out that the perusal of the cross-examination of respondent's witness made on behalf of the applicant show that the suggestion was made to him to the effect that the petitioner was appointed by Regional Manager Nawabshah, who was competent to issue such order. Another suggestion was also made that the petitioner (employee) was dismissed by Regional Manager Nawabshah. The respondent/Bank witness was confronted with Annexure A/3 (order of dismissal) to suggest that, such order was issued by Regional Manager.
13. ' In the given situation, since the case of action also arose to the respondent/employee at Nawabshah and the entire proceedings were taken at Nawabshah the Labour Court having territorial jurisdiction over Nawabshsh District will only the competent to adjudicate the matter.
14. ' Since a conclusion has been arrived at that the Labour Court Hyderabad had no territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter, the order passed by the same has to be set aside.
15. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The grievance petition of the applicant/respondent shall be returned to him for presenting the same before Labour Court having territorial jurisdiction. Needless to state that the time consumed in the litigation before Labour Court Hyderabad, shall be condoned.
16. ' Listed applications having become infructuous are dismissed.