' ALI SAIN DINO METLO, MEMBER.--- The appellant has challenged judgment dated 31.03.2006 of the Sindh Labour Court No.IV, Karachi, dismissing his Application No.52/2001 for reinstatement in service.
2. The case of the appellant is that he was employee of the respondent No.01, who transferred him to its sister company the respondent No.02 and the latter terminated his service unlawfully.
3. The case of the respondents is that the appellant was employee of the respondent No.02, who transferred him for short period to its sister company the respondent No.01, called him back and thereafter dispensed with his services due to closure of its factory for economic reasons with permission of the 3rd Labour Court, Balochistan, at Hub.
4. The Labour Court found that the appellant was employee of the respondent No.02 who dispensed with his services due to closure of its factory.
5. In his cross-examination, the appellant admitted that he had applied to and was employed by the respondent No.02 at Hub, Balochistan, and that at one stage he had tendered his resignation to the respondent No.02 but had subsequently withdrawn and the respondent No.02 had allowed him to continue the job. After his transfer to the respondent No.01 for a short period of about 06 months, his transfer was cancelled and he was called back. He joined his duty back with the respondent No.02, who dispensed with his services on 12.05.2001, due to closure of its factory.
6. In view of the clear admissions of the appellant supported by challenged documents viz, appellant's applications tendering and withdrawing his resignation, transfer letter dated 30.09.2000, cancellation of transfer letter dated 12.04.2001 and letter of dispensation of service dated 12.05.2001, all addressed to and issued by the respondent No.02, no exception can be taken to the finding of the Labour Court that the appellant was employee of the respondent No. 02 and not of the respondent No.01. Transfer of an employee for a short period to a sister company will not make him employee of the sister company.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent No.02 dispensed with services of the appellant in May, 2001, while permission for closure of the factory was granted by the Labour Court, Balochistan, at Hub, in 2003. In'this regard it will suffice to say that actions of the respondent No.02, being beyond territorial jurisdiction of Sindh labour judiciary, cannot be scrutinized a labour courts or labour appellate tribunal of Sindh. The appellant may seek his remedy from the competent Court, if advised.
8. Accordingly, the appeal, being meritless, is dismissed.