DECISION ' This appeal has been filed against the order dated 15-4-1990, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fifth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, whereby the grievance application of the appellant was returned to him under Order VII, Rule 11 of C.P.C. For presentation before the proper Court having jurisdiction. As this order cannot be considered decision or order which finally determined the rights of parties the appeal would not lie under section 37(3) of the I.R.O., 1969, but a revision would lie under section 38(3-a) of the I.R.O., 1969. This appeal is treated as revision application and is disposed of accordingly.
2. I have heard Mr. MA. Hasan Malik, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. A.T. Mahmood, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the case.
3. In the grievance application the applicant has made two prayers. Firstly he had prayed for salary dues for the time he remained under suspension from December, 1982 to December, 1985 and secondly for determination of his seniority. It is contended by Mr. Hasan Malik that the applicant was suspended by the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi, and further that seniority list was conveyed to the applicant by the D.S., Railway, Karachi. The learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order holding that the grievance petition could be filed at the place, where the applicant was posted at the time when he filed the grievance petition which is shown as Digri, or where the head office of the respondent was situated viz. At Lahore.
4. The learned Presiding Officer, arrived at this opinion without recording any evidence. Admittedly the Office of the Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi, who is respondent No,2 and is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Vth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi. It can only be determined as to whether the cause of action accrued to the applicant within the jurisdiction of Labour Court No, 5 or not after evidence is recorded. Though the provisions of C.P.C. Strictly are not applicable under the I.R.O., still the Labour Court is declared to be the Civil Court for purposes of adjudication. Under section 36(2) it shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have the same powers as are vested in such Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for determining any industrial dispute. Certain powers are specifically conferred upon the Labour Court under subsection (2) of section 36, but these powers are not exhaustive. Generally the provisions of Civil Procedure Code so far as they are not repugnant to the I.R.O., are to be followed as far as possible. In this context, provision of section 20 of the C.P.C. Would also be relevant and requires consideration by the learned Labour Court while determining the question of jurisdiction.
5. The question of territorial jurisdiction question of fact and law and cannot be decided without recording evidence. As such the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned Labour Court for recording the evidence and then to decide if it has no territorial jurisdiction and to decide the case on merits if it comes to the conclusion, that it has jurisdiction.