DECISION ' This is an appeal filed by the appellant against an impugned order, dated 29-3-1987, passed by the Sind Labour Court No, Vth at Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant under section 25-A, I.R.O.
1969.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to have been employed as a Chowkidar with the respondent bank, having been appointed by the head office at Karachi, but have served for a long period of about 13 years in the Province of N.W.F.P. And lastly employed at the Shinkiari Branch, Thano Oghi, District Mansehra, N.W.F.P. The appellant claimed that on 24-4- 1982 he was involved in a false case of murder and was in judicial custody till 23-11-1984 when he was enlarged on bail and that he had informed the Zonal management at Abbottabad about these facts and requested for grant of leave for the absence. He claimed that when after release on bail, he reported for the duty, he was told that his services were already dismissed. The claim of the appellant was further that on 25-4-1984 he was acquitted from the charge by the Sessions Judge, Mansehra on account of a compromise and when again reported for duty along with the Judgment, he was not allowed to do so and instead a photo copy of a letter, dated 21-11-1982 terminating his service was delivered to him against which he submitted a departmental appeal which was too rejected so his grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court No, Vth at Karachi.
3. The respondent bank, instead of resisting the petition on merits, had raised legal objection on the maintainability of the grievance petition of the appellant on the grounds, namely, the grievance petition under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969 was hopelessly time-barred as far back as for more than 2.5 years; and that the learned Labour Court at Karachi had no territorial jurisdiction in the present case, therefore, the grievance petition of the appellant could not be sustained which was liable to be dismissed.
4. The learned labour Court, after hearing both the parties on these legal objections has passed the impugned order, hence, this appeal.
5. Both the parties have submitted their respective written arguments in support of their contentions. I have carefully perused these arguments and also the record and proceedings of the case. Appellant had contended that on 24-4-1982, the appellant was arrested on a charge of murder and remained in judicial custody till 23-11-1984, when he was released on bail and after this he reported for duty, but he was told by the Zonal Office that his service had already been dismissed on account of his absence without intimation, though, in fact he had sent such intimation to the Zonal Management of the respondent Bank at Abbotabad, Mr. Lodhi further contended that again, as soon as on 25-4-1984 when he was finally acquitted by the Session Judge, Mansehra, he reported for duty and that time he was served with a photo copy of a letter, dated 21-11-1982. Under which his service were dismissed, so, being aggrieved, he submitted his Departmental Appeal which was also rejected by the Head Office of the respondent Bank, vide intimation, dated 18-9-1984 and thereafter, that appellant sent his grievance notice followed by his grievance petition before the learned labour Court under section 25-A, I.R.O. 1969, therefore, it cannot be said that either the grievance petition were hopelessly time-barred, in view of the above factual position or that the learned Labour Court at Karachi had no territorial jurisdiction in this matter, when, the facts are that in the termination of employment it was specifically mentioned that the Head Office at Karachi had no territorial jurisdiction in this matter, when the facts are the in the termination of employment it was specifically mentioned that the Head Officer at Karachi had advised the Zonal Chief at Abbottabad to terminate the services of the appellant, Mr. Lodhi further submitted that under the circumstances, the Lahore Courts at N.W.F. Province and the Province of Sind had concurrent jurisdiction particularly, in view of section 20 of the C.P.C. In support of his arguments Mr. S.P. Lodhi had relied upon a number of authorities of this Tribunal as well as of the superior Courts including the Supreme Court, such as, 1985 PLC at Page 543, Civil Appeal No,KAR- 143/82 before the Supreme Court upholding the decision of Sind High Court in Case No, HCA-66/82.
After careful perusal of these reported case, I am of the view that none of these cases are similar to the facts and circumstances of the present case, therefore, they are distinguishable.
6. On the other hand, Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent bank has contended that the grievance petition of the appellant was hopelessly time-barred as the services of the appellant were terminated on 21-11-1982 and yet, after expiry of a period of more than 2.5 years he had submitted his grievance notice or the grievance petition, therefore, it was time-barred and cannot be sustained, and is liable to be dismissed. Secondly, Mr. Mahmood A.
Ghani, the learned counsel for the respondent bank has contended that the appellant was initially appointed to be posted in N.W.F. Province and throughout the period of his employment, he remained in N.-W.F.Province and never worked outside the province and lastly he was also dismissed from service by the Zonal Office at Abbottabad, located in the Province of N.-W.F.P.
Therefore, the Labour Court located in the Province of N.-W.F.P. Had proper jurisdiction and not the Labour Court, located in the Province of Sind. He had further contended that it is a settled principle of Law that the Head Office and the Branch Office had the proper jurisdiction with regard to the provisions of Labour Laws. Therefore, the Labour Court located in Mansehra District or anywhere in the Province of N.-W.F. Province had the proper jurisdiction in the case of the present appellant as the cause of action had been accrued there and not a Labour Court located, either in Karachi or anywhere in the province of Sind. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned counsel for the respondent bank in support of his pleadings, has referred to me to. a number of authorities, reported in 1975 P L C 194 at 198, 1987 PLC 390 at p. 396 and the latest decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No, KAR- 89/1987. I have carefully gone through these authorities and I am of the opinion that these authorities are very much applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present appellant and the learned Labour Court located at Karachi have no jurisdiction- as far as the present appellant is concerned. In view of these legal aspects and other circumstances of the present case, I find nothing wrong with the impugned order and the learned Labour Court was quite correct in passing the impugned order.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present appeal is accordingly dismissed.