' Mustehkam Cement Limited was a public Limited Company having its cement factory at Hattar, District Hazara, but its registered Head Office at Rawalpindi. Noor Muhammad, appellant, was appointed as a Clerk in the factory of the respondent at Hattar in 1966. He was subsequently promoted to the post of Cement Despatch Assistant. On 27/28-5-1978 a show-cause notice (Exh. P.
1) was issued to him by Mr. Zakir Muhammad, General Manager of the Factory. The appellant submitted his reply (Exh. P. 2) to the show-cause notice to the said General Manager of the Factory.
Vide Letter dated 31-5-1978 (Exh. P. 3) the same General Manager of the Factory informed the appellant that his explanation to the show-cause notice was thoroughly examined by the Management but the same was found unsatisfactory and that in order to find out real facts in the case it had been decided to hold an enquiry into the matter. Mr. S. H. Tariq, M. E. And Mr. Idrees Sajid Chaudhry, A. M. (T.P.T.) were appointed to act as Chairman and Member, respectively, of the Enquiry Committee by the General Manager. The appellant was directed to report to the Enquiry Committee as and when directed. The Enquiry Committee vide its report (Exh. P. 4) held that all the five charges mentioned in the show-cause notice had been proved to be correct and that the Management could proceed to pass such orders as 'Were deemed fit under the law and the circumstances of the case. On 14-6-1978 second show-cause notice (Exh. P. 5) was issued to the appellant by the same General Manager of the Factory. The appellant submitted his reply (Exh. P.
6) to the second show-cause notice to the same General Manager. Vide office order (Exh. P. 7) the appellant was dismissed from service with immediate effect under Standing Order 15(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 by the same General Manager of the respondent Factory. On 8-7-1978 the appellant sent a grievance notice (Exh. P. 8) to the General Manager, Mustehkam Cement Limited, Hattar, but got no reply. The appellant then filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Punjab Labour Court No, 6, Rawalpindi against Mustehkam Cement Limited, Head Office, Haider Road, Rawalpindi. The Labour Court vide impugned decision dated 17-12-1979 dismissed the petition for want of jurisdiction. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned decision, the appellant has filed the present appeal.
2. I have heard at length the counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire material available on the record.
3. The question which directly arises for consideration in this case is as to which. Labour Court will have the jurisdiction (1) within whose territorial jurisdiction the factory of the company where the appellant was employed (Hattar), or (2) within whose territorial jurisdiction the Head Office of the Company is situated. It is vehemently contended by the counsel for the appellant that the appellant, being an employee of the Company, was justified to file his grievance petition at Rawalpindi, where the Head Office of the Company is located. Reliance in this behalf is placed upon section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On the other hand, the argument advanced by the counsel for the respondent is that since the appellant was employed in the factory at Hattar, charge-sheet was issued to him by the General Manager of the Factory at Hattar and orders of dismissal were also passed by the General Manager of the Factory, the Labour Court within whose territorial jurisdiction the factory of the respondent is located would have the jurisdiction.
4. The Labour Courts are established by the Provincial Government under section 35 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Clause (1) of this section is relevant and is reproduced below :- (135 Labour Court.-(1) The Provincial Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, establish as many Labour Courts as it considers necessary and where it establishes more than one Labour Court, shall specify in the notification the territorial limits within which or the industry or the classes of cases in respect of which, each one of them shall exercise jurisdiction under this Ordinance."
5. In exercise of the powers conferred under section 35 of the Ordinance, the Governor of the Punjab vide Notification No, S.
0. LAB (VI) 3/4-73 P.
0. L. II dated 24-2-1977 made the posting of the various Presiding Officers of Punjab Courts at the Headquarters and jurisdiction shown against each Court. The jurisdiction of Punjab Labour Court No, 6, at Rawalpindi was shown as under :- "Civil District of Rawalpindi, Jhelum, Campbellsport and Federal territory of Islamabad."
' From the perusal of subsection (1) of section 35, it is clear that the Provincial Government can confer following kinds of jurisdiction upon the Labour Court :- "(1) territorial.
(2) Classes of industries, and
(3) Classes of cases.
6. In the above clear provisions of law, the principle contained in section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be attracted to the instant case.
7. The above inference is supported by the fact that no Departmental appeal is provided for under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. Hence the employer of the aggrieved employee alone is made party in such grievance petitions. Provision of Standing Order 15(4) also talks about the approval of the employer and not of any higher authority. Grievance notice under section 25-A is also to be served upon the employer and not upon any other higher authority. To file grievance petitions against the authorities, other than the employer, will, therefore, be against the Scheme of the Labour laws. The convenience of the worker/employee also requires that petitions should be filed within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court where he works or is employed. As regards the facts of the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the appellant was employed in the Factory at Hattar; he is alleged to have committed a misconduct at Hattar; the General Manager 'of the Factory, being the appointing and dismissing authority of the appellant, is his employer the appellant was issued show-cause notice by the General Manager of the Factory at Hattar; he submitted his reply to the show-cause notice to the same General Manager at Hattar; enquiry was also instituted and completed at Hattar and final show-cause notice and order of dismissal were also passed by the same General Manager of the Factory at Hattar. Thus, keeping in view the various provisions of law and the facts and circumstances of the case, it can reasonably be held that the Labour Court at Rawalpindi has no territorial or otherwise any jurisdiction either under section 35 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 or the notification issued by the Government to deal with the case of the appellant, who admittedly was working in the factory of the respondent at Hattar, which is situated in another Province. The respondent has also placed on record copies of certain decisions given by the Labour Court, Hazara Camp, Haripur regarding certain other employees of the same factory of the respondent at Hattar.
8. For the foregoing reasons, the Labour Court at Rawalpindi has rightly dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant for want of jurisdiction. However, while dismissing the grievance petition the proper course for the Labour Court was to return the petition to the appellant for presenting the same before the proper Court. Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal, I direct the Labour Court to return the petition to the appellant for presenting it before the proper Court, if he so likes.