SALEEM AKHTAR, J.-This High Court Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge by which Constitution Petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. Briefly the facts are that the appellants have its head office at StateLife Building I. I. Chundrigar Road , and their factory is situated at Landhi. The respondent No. 2 was employed with the appellants in their factory when on 9th August, 1980 he was asked to report at the appellant's head office where he reported the next day. By another order his services were transferred from head office to appellant's branch office at Lahore and on the same date the respondent was also relieved of his duties from the appellant's factory at Landhi. The respon--dent No. 2 took leave on one ground or the other and ultimately did not report at Lahore. The appellant's Managing Director, therefore, dismissed the respondent No. 2 from service on 9th May, 1981. The respondent No. 2 filed application under section 25-A of the I. R. O. Before respondent No. 1 where the matter proceeded.
After the respondent No. 2 had closed his evidence the appellants raised objection to the territorial jurisdiction of respondent No. 1 on the ground that the cause of action had accrued at the head office which is situated within the territorial juris--diction of Labour Court No. V. This objection was dismissed by the respondent No. I on 4th March, 1982 mainly on the ground that the application was filed late when the evidence of respondent No. 2 had been closed and the appellant's evidence had partly been recorded. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 made a reference. To the Labour Appellate Tribunal for transfer of the case to some other Court, This reference was accepted and the case was transferred to the Presiding Officer III Labour Court, Karachi, the respondent No. 3. The appellants then filed petition in the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Labour Court . The learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 5th September, 1982 dismissed the petition.
2. Mr. Mamoon ~ Kazi the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the case was filed before respondent No. 1 who did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the same and, therefore, there was lack of inherent jurisdiction and such objection could have been raised at any time of the proceedings. To determine this aspect of the case reference is made to paras. 3 and 4 of the memo, of Appeal which are as follows :-- ---3. That respondent No. 2 was originally working at the appellants factory of Landhi till 9th August, 1980 when on the said 1983 date he was asked to report at the appellants' Head Office, which is situated at State Life Building, I.
1. Chundrigar Road, Karachi and when the said respondent reported at the Head Office "the next day, i. e. 10th August, 1980, by another office order, his services were transferred from Head Office to the appellants' branch office at Lahore. On the same date, the respondent was also relieved of his duties from the appellants' factory at Landhi.
4. That thereafter, the said respondent attended the appellants' Head Office for about ten days after which he proceeded on long leave which was granted to him with effect from 21st August, 1980 to 5th October, 1980 owing to his were's expected delivery."
A reading of these averments makes it clear that the respondent No. 2 had been working at the factory of the appellant till 9th August, 198 when he was asked to report to the Head Office the next day, that is, 10th August, 1980. There is nothing in the averment to show that the respon--dent No. 2 had been transferred to the Head Office. . He was, however, transferred to Lahore Office and was.
Relieved of his duties from lot August, 1980. In the circumstances he could not have been presumed t A be attending duties at the Head Office. He had worked in the factory till such time as he was transferred to Lahore. In view of these facts when the service was terminated the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 in whose territorial jurisdiction the factory falls can be attracted. The jurisdic--tion of the Labour Court in whose territorial jurisdiction the Head Office is situated could also be concurrently invoked. We are, therefore, of the view that there was no lack of inherent jurisdiction in respondent No. 2 a the time of filing the case.
For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed in limine.