1. ORDER The Government of Sind, by Notification No. Lab (1) 6-39/71, dated 9th September, 1972, established four more labour Courts, in addition to the1 two already existing, in the Province of Sind.
2. By the same Notification territorial limits of the jurisdiction of each of the six Courts were also specified. After the issuance of the said Notification, an objection has been raised that this Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the cases, which had been instituted even before the Notification was issued, pertaining to1 the areas which are now within the territorial jurisdiction of the other Courts. Since such objection has been raised in several cases pending in this Court, general arguments were heard on the point. I have had the advantage of hearing the views of the following leamed Representatives of the Employers and the Employees:-- (1) Mr. Ghulam Hassan.
(2) Mr. Wasi Ahmad. (3) Mr. S. M. Yaqub. (4) Mr. M. A. Majeed. (5) Mr. F. H. Asad. (6) Mr. Shafique Qureshi. (7) Mr. M. A. Khan. (8) Mr.' Abdul Hameed Puri. (9) Mr. Itrat Puri. (10) Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani.
3. In order to appreciate the position properly, a brief history of the creation of Labour Courts from time to time may be traced here. The regular forum for the adjudication of industrial disputes was established, for the first time, when the Central Industrial Court at Karachi was constituted by the Government of Pakistan, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1969, by Notification No. S. R. O. 253(K), dated 12th March 1960. Subsequently, the said Court was transferred to the Government of West Pakistan, and was re-designated as the West Pakistan Industrial Court. The Govemment of West Pakistan established two more Industrial Courts for the Northern and Central Zone, at Lahore, by Notification No. 3-9 (L-11)/64, dated 21st November 1964. The territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Karachi was limited to the Karachi, Hyderabad and Khairpur Divisions, while the jurisdiction of the Courts at Lahore extended to the rest of the Province of West Pakistan and the Industrial disputes with respect to the undertakings of Pakistan Western Railways and the departments of Post, Telephone and Telegraphs of the whole Province. By Notification No. 3-91 (L-II)/66, published in the Government Gazette of West Pakistan dated 7th November 1966. Second Industrial Court at Karachi was established having concurrent jurisdiction with First Industrial Court, Karachi, lt appears that doubts had arisen regarding the pending cases in the Courts at Karachi and Lahore, after re-distribution of their territorial judisdiction.
4. Consequently, Notification No. 3-91A (L-lI)/66, dated 10th November, 1966, was issued to the effect, that, notwithstanding anything contained in the Notification dated 7th November 1966, the Courts at Karachi and Lahore shall dispose of all the industrial disputes pending in those Courts immediately before the said Notification was issued. Consequent upon the disintegration of the Province of West Pakistan, Notification No. 10-75 (L-II)/70 dated 17th June 1970, was issued, reconstituting the two Labour Courts at Karachi in exercise of the powers conferred by section 35 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, having concurrent jurisdiction as before in the Province of Sind. These Courts continued exercising that jurisdiction, till the Notification dated 9th September 1972 was issued which has again created doubts regarding the pending cases. The learned Representatives, who have urged that this Court has no jurisdiction with respect to the pending case, have relied upon the words, "in supersession of all previous notifications", appearing in the Notification dated 9th September 1972. It is contended by them that these words indicate that the territorial jurisdiction of this Court given to it under the previous notifications has been taken away with retrospective effect, and hence the Court can not proceed with the adjudication of pending industrial disputes. They have compared the present position with repeal of an enactment with no saving clause. The learned Representatives, who have expressed the contrary opinion, contend that the jurisdiction once given to a Labour Court under section 35 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, cannot be taken away with retrospective effect by a Notification. Since the Labour Court or any other authority has not been invested with the power of transfer of cases from one Court to the other, the industrial dispute brought before the particular Court cannot be adjudicated by any Court other than the one in which it has been instituted. They have also referred to section 6 and 14 of the General Clauses Act, in support of their contention. Section 6(e) saves proceedings commenced under an enactment which was subsequently repealed, and section 14 provides for the exercise of powers once conferred, unless a different intention appears ln the repealing enactment. Employibs* Union v. Coining Glass (Pak.) Ltd. (Shaffi Muhammad R. Akhtmd, Chairman)
5. I would have discussed in detail all these points and the authorities referred to by the leamed Representatives, had there not been the Ruling of the Division Bench of the Hight Court of Dacca, reported in Messrs Gammon East Pakistan Ltd. v. The Chairman, Second Labour Court of East Pakistan and others (1). in which exactly the same question came up for determination and similar points were urged before their Lordships. This authority seems to have escaped the notice of the leamed Representatives, for none of them has referred to it. Their Lordships have observed as follows in that case:-- "Mr. Mustafa Kamal, the leamed Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Company has raised one question of law before us in this Court His contention is that by notification published in Dacca Gazette on the 20th of March 1969, the Govemment of East Pakistan has reconstituted the Labour Courts and according to the leamed Advocate for the petitioner, it is the 3rd Labour Court which has the jurisdiction to hear a dispute of this nature. His further contention is that since by the said notification the previous notification dated the 7th of July 1964 had been superseded on and from the 20th March 1969, the 2nd Labour Court has ceased to have its jurisdiction over the matter and, as such the awards given by the Labour Court on 25th July 1969 in one case and on 21st July 1969 in another case were made at a time when it had no jurisdiction to hear these cases. The contention of the leamed Advocate cannot be upheld in view of the fact that by section 9 of the East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965, the Provincial Govemment had been given power to constitute and to determine the area of the Labour Courts. So far as the jurisdiction of the Labour Court is concerned, it is given under section 6 of the Act. Therefore, the constitution or the ieconstitution of the territorial area will not effect a pending proceeding. In both these petitions the cases before the leamed Labour Court were initiated at a time when it had jurisdiction to hearjthese matters, by subsequent notification the adjustment of the territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court will not affect pending proceeding as the Provincial Govemment can neither confer nor take away the jurisdiction given to labour Court, by the Act itself nor by such notification the Govemment has purported to act as such. Therefore, this contention of the leamed Advocate cannot be entertained and hence it is rejected. The next contention of the leamed Advocate for the petitioner is that since by notification published in the Gazette of 20th March 1969, the previous notification of 7th July 1964 was being susperseded without any saving clause, all pending proceedings on and from that date become non est or in other words cease to have any legal effect. In support of his contention he wants to draw an analogy of a repeal of an Act without providing for a saving clause. The analogy cannot be applied in a case of notification in view of the fact that one is a legislative function of the Legislature and the other is a delegated function exercised by the Provincial Govemment under the delegated authority of the Act itself. In this view of the fact, the analogy sought to be drawn by the leamed Advocate cannot be entertained.
6. Further, there is nothing in the notification which takes away the jurisdiction of an existing proceeding. In any view of the matter, this contention of the leamed Advocate also fails*'. (1) 1971 PLC 396 Section 9 of the East Pakistan Labour Disputes Act, 1965, referred to in the above Authority, is in terms similar to section 35 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which the two Labour Courts, at Karachi, were constituted and jurisdiction assigned to them by Notification dated 17th June 1970. Therefore, in view of the authority cited above, the re-distribution of jurisdiction will not affect the pending proceedings and this a Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate and dispose of the industrial disputes instituted before the Notification dated 9th September 1972 was issued. The objection with respect to the jurisdiction of this Court is, therefore, overruled.