' AJMAL MIAN, J.-This petition is directed against the order dated 14th January, 1980 passed by respondent No, 2 (i. e. The Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal) in Appeals Nos, KA R-223 of 1979 and KAR-245 of 1979, holding that Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance application of workman Khadim Hussain on the ground that not only he was employed in an establishment outside the limits of the Province of Sind but further the dismissal order was passed outside the Province of Sind.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner was employed by P.I.D.C. At Karachi. He was liable to be transferred to different units of P.I.D.C. At the relevant time he was working as Chowkidar in P.I.D.C's. Tarbella Cotton Mills, N.-W.F.P. He was charge-sheeted and was ultimately dismissed by the Project Manager. The petitioner after serving requisite notice filed the aforesaid application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. In 5th Sind Labour Court at Karachi. The above application was resisted by respondent No, 1, P.I.D.C. During the arguments it was urged that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction as the Textile Mill was situated in Haripur Hazara, N.-W.F.P.
However the Labour Court held that it had jurisdiction and allowed the above aforesaid application without granting back benefits. It was also observed in the order that fresh inquiry could be held by respondent No,
1. The petitioner and respondent No, 1 filed the aforesaid appeals, i. e. Petitioner filed Appeal No, KAR-245 of 1979 and respondent No, 1 filed Appeal No, KAR-223 of 1979, which were disposed of by the above common impugned order dated 14th January, 1980. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.
3. (a) In support of above petition Mr. Shahenshah Hussain learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner's application under section 25-A was competent at Karachi for two reasons, namely, (i) that admittedly part of the cause of action accrued at Karachi and (ii) by virtue of explanation II to section 20, C.P.C., respondent No, 1 being a Corporation could have been sued at Karachi.
(b) On the other hand, Mr. Ghulam Hassan Paryani, learned counsel for the respondent No, 1 has contended that since the Tarbella Cotton Textile Mill where the petitioner was working was situated in Haripur Hazara, N.-W.F.P. And his services were terminated at Haripur Hazara, the competent Court to entertain the petitioner's application under section 25-A was the Labour Court at Haripur Hazara, N.-W.F.P.
4. Adverting to the above contention of the learned counsel for the parties, it may be observed that it is an admitted position that the petitioner was employed by respondent No, 1 at Karachi and was transferred to Tarbella Textile Mill Haripur Hazara. It has also not been controverted that prior to the passing of the dismissal order of the petitioner, the Project Manager of the Tarbella Textile Mill had obtained the approval of the Head Office at Karachi. It is also the case of the petitioner that he was subject to transfer to any other Mill by respondent No, 1.
' Mr. Shahenshah Hussain has relied upon the following cases in support of his above contention.
(i) Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. And another v. Sind Employees' Social Security Institution and another PLD 1977 SC 197, in which the facts were that the appellant's factory was notified as an establishment for the purposes of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, but their Head Office was not so notified. The respondent, Social Security Institution demanded contribution in respect of the employees who were working in the Head Office. The Honourable Supreme Court while construing sections 2 (8) and 11 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, observed as follows : "That this is the proper construction of the term 'establishment' appears to find support from the definition of the term `employee' as given in clause (8) of section 2 of the Ordinance, which includes in the definition not only a person working in the industry or establishment but also 'in connection with the work of any industry, business, undertaking or establishment. It is clear to me that a person who is working `in connection with the work of an establishment may not necessarily be physically located in the notified premises, but may be elsewhere-of course, within the social security area was notified under clause (3) of section I of the Ordinance. The essential test in such a case would be whether the person con cerned is needed working in connection with the work of the notified establishment. The late Chief Justice has rightly remarked, in the case of the Kashmir Corner Industries, that the mere fact of common ownership could not be made the basis of extending the social security benefits to employees of a sister concern, although they are not working in connection with the notified establishment. Similarly, the benefit could not be extended to employees simply described as working in the Head Office of the organization of establishment concerned, unless a proper inquiry is held to establish whether they are indeed working in connection with the notified establishment."
' It was also held that the specified benefits under the Ordinance would accrue to all employees of the notified establishment who are working either in the establishment or in connection with the work of the same. And that the latter category of the employees may not be physically located at the notified address, but what was required that they should be working in connection with the work of the notified establishment.
(ii) Sind Alkalis Ltd. v. Fourth Sind Labour Court and others 1983 PLC 1220. In the above case the facts were that respondent workman was working in the appellant's factory at Landhi till 9th August, 1980, when he was asked to report to the appellant's head office situated at State Life Building, I. I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi. When he reported at the head office on 10th August, 1980, his services were transferred from head office to the appellant's branch office at Lahore. It was the case of the respondent worker that he had attended appellant's head office for about 10 days after which he proceeded on long leave. Since he did not report to the Lahore office his services were terminated. He filed an application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Before the Labour Court having territorial jurisdiction of the area where the appellant's head office was situated. The appellant resisted the application, inter alia, on the ground that the Labour Court had jurisdiction as the factor whether respondent was working was situated in Landhi which fell within the jurisdiction of the other Labour Court, but the above objection was overruled. The appellant filed Constitutional Petition in the High Court which was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereupon a High Court Appeal was filed against the above order of the learned Single Judge, which was dismissed in limine and inter alia the following observations were made : "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, 1980 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 respondent No, 2 had been transferred to the Head Office. He was however, transferred to Lahore office and was relieved of his duties from 10th August, 1980. In these circumstances he could not have been presumed to 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 jurisdiction of the Labour Court in whose territorial jurisdiction the Head Office is situated could also be concurrently invoked. We are, therefore, of the view this there was no lack of inherent jurisdiction in respondent No, 2 at the time of filing the case."
5. We have noticed that the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal has relied upon the above cited Supreme Court case and also has referred to some other cases and has held that in view of the scheme of the labour law since the respondent No, l's Mill was situated in Haripur Hazara and as it was a separate establishment, the competent Court would have been the Labour Court having the jurisdiction over Haripur Hazara and not the Labour Court in Sind. We are unable to subscribe to the above reasoning. There can be a case of concurrent jurisdiction. In the instant case we are of the view that the above Karachi case, to which one of us was a party (Ajmal Mian, J.), on all fours is applicable to the instant case and the Court at Haripur Hazara as well as Labour Court at Karachi have concurrent jurisdiction. Admittedly part of the cause of action accrued at Karachi. The petitioner was appointed at Karachi and was posted at the Mill at Haripur in pursuance of the order passed at Karachi. It has not been denied that even dismissal order was passed with the approval of the Head Office at Karachi. If the petitioner would have been appointed locally by the Project Manager, Tarbela Mill at Haripur ; the cause of action would have accrued at Haripur in case of the instant dismissal and the Labour Court at Karachi would have no jurisdiction.
6. We, therefore, allow the above petition and declare the impugned order being without lawful authority and of no legal effect and remand the a case to the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, with the direction to decide the above two appeals on merits.
' There will be no order as to costs.
Appeal allowed.