JUDGMBNT This judgment will also dispose of .
2. Both the respondents, Abdullah Malik and Hamid Akhtar, are working presently as Special Correspondent and Deputy Editor, Daily Newspaper, Tmroze', Lahore, respectively. Abdullah Malik filed a complaint against tbe petitioner Kh.
Muhhammad Asif, Chairman, National Press Trust, under section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the Ordinance) before the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court (I), Northern Zone, Lahore. He was also examined in support of his complaint by respondent No. 2. Copies of the complaint and his statement have been filed as Annexs : 'A' and 'B', respectively. It was alleged by him that during the elections of P P L Workers' Union, held in June, 1974, he alongwith his other colleagues helped and supported the panel headed by Hamid Akhtar, who was a candidate for Presidentship, against Akhtar Ali Mirza, who was later on elected as President of the Union. The panel of Ali Akhtar Mirza was supported by the petitioner Kh.
Muhammad Asif and Zahir Babar, presently Chief Editor 'Jmroze', also petitioner No. 2 in . After the election Ali Akhtar Mirza threatened him as well as his other colleagues, including Hamid Akhtar, to expel them from the Union on account of their opposition shown to him. According to him, they were also threatened by the petitioner as well as by Zahir Babar on the same ground. It was also alleged that the petitioner and Zahir Babar both, were inimical to him since April 1972, when he was arbitrarily assigned the duties of a Special Correspondent instead of Chief Reporter. Consequently Kh. Muhammad Asif, in order to intimidate Abdullah Malik, issued him charge sheet on 3-8-1974.
The allegations as levelled therein were denied, but the explanation submitted in this behalf was not found satisfactory. However, during the inquiry proceedings Abdullah Malik was found net guilty, but in spite of that Kh. Muhammad Asif issued another charge sheet on 20-8-1974 and threatened to punish him for misconduct and in spite of the fact that Abdullah Malik had been exhonerated of the charges, he was given warning, which was entered in his Service Book. It was alleged that by entering warning in his Service Book the petitioner intended to discriminate against him in regard to increment and his promotion and also to involve him in some other case of misconduct. It was alleged that the above allegations, as made in the complaint, made out a case under section 15 of the Ordinance against the petitioner.
3. Respondent No. 2 examined Abdullah Malik in support of his case and after recording his statement held that since the petitioner, prima facie had contravened the provisions of section 15(c) and (d) of the Ordinance, therefore, he may be summoned for 7-12-1974 under section 53 of the Ordinance.
4. Hamid Akhtar in his complaint, filed against the petitioners in , alleged that both the petitioners interfered in the annual general elections of the PPL Workers' Union held in June 1974 and openly helped his rival candidate Akhtar Ali Mirza for the Presidentship of the Union. After the general elections, on account of his activities with regard to Trade Unionism, both the petitioners took discriminatory steps against him and his other colleagues in regard to promotions and conditions of employment. It was alleged that although he was senior in service and was working as Deputy Editor, Daily Imroze, but in spite of that he was superseded by Hamid Jhelumi, another Deputy Editor of the Newspaper, who was appointed as its Editor. It was further alleged that this step was taken in spite of the fact that the seniority of Hamid Akhtar had been settled by the predecessor-in-office of Kh. Muhammad Asif, the petitioner, in 1973 and the said decision was accepted by Hamid Jhelumi, who never expressed any grievance against the same. It was alleged that in view of the allegations made in the complaint both the petitioners had acted in violation of the penal provision of section 15(c) of the Ordinance.
Hamid Akhtar was also examined in support of the averments made by him in his complaint and after his statement was recorded both the petitioners were summoned as accused to appear before respondent No. 2, as case had been made out against them under section 15(c) of the Ordinance.
5. The leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has raised the following contentions : (a)Respondent No. 2 in has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by Hamid Akhtar, as the order of appointment of Hamid Jhelum!, as Editor Daily Imroze, was issued at Lahore, while the jurisdiction in regard to the said district vests, according to Notification No. 10- 75(LAB)-111/70 dated 11-6-1973, in Labour Court No. 1. (b)At the time of the Annual General Elections of the Union, held in June, 1974, none of the petitioners was either employer of both the respondents nor was acting on behalf of the employer. (c) The petitioner Kh. Muhammad Asif was appointed as Chairman of the National Press Trust with effect from 16-7-1974 in place of Sh. Hamid Mahmood.
After his appointment as such Abdullah Malik was served with the charge-sheet and after observing all the legal formalities he was given a warning and the same was entered in his service record. Since Abdullah Malik has already availed of the remedy as provided by section 25-A of the Ordinance by filing a petition thereunder his complaint under section 53 of the Ordinance, with regard to the administration of warning, being a threat to his dismissal, discharge or removal from employment on account of his activities as workman of PPL Trade Union, is not maintainable and respondent No. 2 has acted beyond its jurisdiction in entertaining the same and passing the impugned order. (id) If Hamid Akhtar is aggrieved against the order with regard to promotion of Hamid Jhelumi as Editor of Daily Imroze, then he can only file petition under section 25-A of the Ordinance, as no offence of any discrimination against him under section 15(c) of the Ordinance can be made out on that basis. (e) The post of Editor is a Selection Post and no Deputy Editor has got any vested right, whatever, to get himself promoted as Editor on the basis of seniority alone. (/)
Even if it is conceded for arguments* sake that letter of appointment of Hamid Jhelumi as Editor, Daily Imroze, Lahore was signed and issued at Rawalpindi, since the order contained therein was implemented and carried out in Lahore, therefore, the offence, if any, was committed at Lahore and, as such, the Punjab Labour Court No. II has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by Hamid Akhtar. (g)The word, 'employer'* as used in section 15 of the Ordinance in relation to clauses (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of the said section pertains to the activities of the PPL Workers' Union in the circumstances of the present case as alleged by both the contesting respondents in their complaints as well as their preliminary statements. It means that the person who was employer at the time when the General Elections of the PPL Workers' Union were held in June, 1974 can only be hit by the mischief of the said provision. Both the Courts have erred in law in exercising the jurisdiction not vested in them by not considering this aspect of the case. (h)The Election of a Trade Union itself is not covered by the activitiei of a Trade Union ; it is something different from that. (0 The provisions as contained in clauses (c) and (d) of subsection (1) of section 15 will only come into play when a workman is or is not a member or officer of the Trade Union or is or proposes to become or seeks to persuade any other person to become a member or officer of a Trade Union or participates in the promotion, formation or activities of a Trade Union.
Since the alleged discrimination against Hamid Akhtar or the alleged threats for the removal of Abdullah Malik were not made against them, on the face of the record, on account of their being member or not members of the Trade Union; or on account of their participation in the activities of a Trade Union, therefore, both the complaints, on account of that, are not, maintainable. (j) In both the cases the Labour Courts have been misdirected to issue process to the petitioners there being no evidence on record in this behalf. As such the impugned orders are of no lawful authority. 6.
During the proceedings Hamid Akhtar submitted his affidavit alongwith photostat copy of the order dated 28-9-1974, passed by the petitioner Kh. Muhammad Asif, promoting and appointing Hamid Jhelumi as Editor, Daily Imroze, Lahore in order to show that the said order was actually passed and signed at Rawalpindi and sent to Lahore Office for implementation purposes. Abdullah Malik also submitted his affidavit in order to show that he was victimized because of his Trade Union activities against the petirioner. Kh. Muhammad Asif has also submitted his counter-affidavits in both the cases denying the allegations as made in both the affidavits of the contesting respondents. He has stated that he was in Lahore on official tour on 28-9-1974 and he signed the said appointment letter on the said date at Lahore. In regard to the allegations as made in the affidavit of Abdullah Malik, he has denied them in toto saying that there has been no victimization against him because of his Trade Union activities.
7. Ch Khalid Mahmood, learned counsel for the contesting respondents has argued that the writ petitions being premature are not maintainable. According to him, the Labour Courts concerned, after appraisal of the preliminary evidence, have found a prima facie case against the petitioners and it will not be lawful to set aside the said order at this stage in the present proceedings. According to him both the Labour Courts have the jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders. He has argued that a case is made out against the petitioners under section 15(c) and (d) of the Ordinance. He has contended that since both the contesting respondents have been victimized on account of their Trade Union activities in the form of their participation in General Elections of the PPL Workers' Union against the petitioners, therefore, the person who has victimized them as employer will be hit by the mischief of section 15 of the Ordinance. The learned counsel has also vehemently argued that since the act of discrimination in the shape of promotion and appointment of Hamid Jhelumi, in supersession of Hamid Akhtar, as Editor or Daily Imroze was done at Rawalpindi and consequently it was implemented at Lahore, therefore, under section 179 Cr. P. C. both the Courts, having territorial jurisdiction in regard to Rawalpindi and Lahorc, have got jurisdiction to try the complaint filed by Hamid Akhtar. He has further contended that section 25-A of the Ordinance provides remedy independent of the provision as contained in section 15 read with section 53. According to him, Hamid Akhtar is not debarred from availing of both the remedies; the discriminatory act on the part of the petitioners against Hamid Akbtar can be challenged under section 25-A as civil remedy and under section 15 read with section 53 being an offence punishable under the said provisions.
8. The respective contentions of the parties as put-forth by the learned counsel for them have been given above in extenso in order to show as to how much at variance they are, not only in regard to making out or otherwise a prima facie case against the petitioners under section 15 of the Ordinance, but also about the jurisdiction of Pimjab Labour Court No. II for the purpose of entertaining the complaint filed by Hamid Akhtar.
9. The first question which arises for consideration out of the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners is; as to whether both the Labour Courts have got jurisdiction to entertain the petitions. It has been argued, as' mentioned above, that since no case is made out against the petitioners under clauses
(c) and (d) of subsection (1) of section 15 of the Ordinance, therefore, both the Labour Courts lack jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. In the case of Hamid Akhtar it has been argued that Punjab Labour Court No. II having no territorial jurisdiction, as discussed above, cannot proceed with the matter.
10. So far as the question of making out or otherwise any case under clauses (c) and {d) of subsection (1) of section 15 is concerned, it has been contended that since the alleged discrimination against Hamid Akhtar has not been made on account of his being a member or not member or officer of a Trade Union, therefore, tne Labour Court concerned lacks jurisdiction in the matter. Hamid Akhtar has alleged in his complaint as well as his statement made before respondent No. 2 that he has been victimised on account of h's opposition to the petitioners in the General Elections of the PPL Workers' Union, held in June, 1974, as member of the same. According to him the alleged discrimination or victimization is due to his membership of the Union on the basis of which he was opposed by the petitioners in the elections. The argument that the provision with regard to discrimination as contained in section 15 is only in relation to such person who is victimized because of his association with a particular Trade Union has no substance. The case of such person who is member of a Trade Union and is victimized because of his activities as such is also covered by the said provision. There is no other provision in the Ordinance under which the case of a workman with regard to alleged discrimination or victimization, because of bis activities as member of a Trade Union, is covered. Therefore, according to law such person who is member of a Trade Union and is discriminated or victimized on account of his activities as' such will be covered by the provision as coutained in clause (c) of subsection (1) of section 15 of the Ordinance.
The bare perusal of the averments as made in the complaint as well as preliminary evidence produced by Hamid Akhtar will show that so far as the allegations made therein are concerned, his case is, prima facie, covered by the said provision. It will, however, be for respondent No. 2 to decide ultimately as to whether such case is made out against the petitioners, after the entire evidence is produced. The discrimination as alleged by Hamid Akhtar may not, at all, be proved, but at this stage no such conclusion can be arrived at.
11. With regard to the territorial jurisdiction of Labour Court No. II to proceed with the case of Hamid Akhtar the learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that even if it is conceded for argument's sake that the appointment letter was signed and issued at Rawalpindi the offence was ultimately completed and committed at Lahore, therefore, the said Court having no territorial jurisdiction with regard to Lahore matters lacks territorial jurisdiction in this case. I am not in a position to make any observation as to whether Punjab Labour Court No. II has actually got the jurisdiction in the case of Hamid Akhtar or not, as it will depend upon the appraisal of the entire evidence to be produced by the parties showing whether the letter ia question was issued and signed at Lahore or at Rawalpindi, as alleged by Hamid Akhtar. However, the latter part of the argument of the learned counsel cannot be accepted to be correct under the law. According to section 179, Cr. P. C. when a person is accused of the commission of any offence by reason of anything which has been done and of any consequence which has ensued such offence may be enquired into or tried by a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction any such thing has been done or any such consequence has ensued. If the offence is complete in itself by reason of the act having been done and consequence is a mere result of it, not essential for the completion of the offence, then section 179 will not apply Section 179 contemplates cases where the act done and consequence ensuing therefrom together constitute the offence. Reliance in this respect can be placed upon Muhammad Aslam and others v. The State (1). In coming to the above conclusion the learned Single Judge, Mr. Justice Anwarul Haq (now Judge, Supreme Court of Pakistan) has relied upon Kashi Ram Mehta v. Emperor (2), Gobindram Dowlatram v. Emperor (3), Gokkaldas Amarsee and others v. Emperor (4) and Mukhi Teerath Das v. Jetha Nand Matvalomal and another (5). The facts of the Karachi case are that accused Zahoor Ahmad who was a partner of Messrs S. A. Brothers, Karachi, approached the Bank of India Ltd. Karachi on 13-10-1959 to open two irrevocable letters of credit in favour of East Pakistan Tannery, Chittagong in the sum of Rs. 3,00,000 to be drawn by the latter on a draft covering shipment of chrome leather by them to Karachi. Accepting the aforesaid proposal the Bank of India Ltd. requested Central Bank of India Ltd. at Karachi to open two letters of credit for Rs. 2,00,000 and 1,00,000 respectively in favour of East Pakistan Tannery. The Central Bank of India Ltd. sent the necessary instructions to their Branch at Chittagong. In pursuance of this arrangement the East Pakistan Tannery drew sum of Rs. 3,00,000 from the Central Bank of India at Chittagong by handing over bills of lading and invoices showing prices, quality and quantity of the goods consigned to Karachi. When the papers were received at Karachi by the Bank of India Ltd. they were presented to Messrs S. A. Brothers for payment, but the firm failed to make the payment on one pretext or the other. Eventually the Bank of India got the said consignment evalued and it was discovered that the price of the goods was less than Rs. 31,COO. l2, Two other letters of credit were similarly opened on 21-10-1959 at the request of the two accused, Zahoor Ahmad and Abdul Aziz, for a sum of Rs.
3,00,000 in favour of East Pakistan Tannery, Chittagong. The latter drew this money in the same manner as already stated and once again the accused Abdul Aziz and Zahoor Ahmad refused to make any payment to the Bank of India against the documents received by the Bank from (1) PLD 1962 Kar. 499 (2) AIR 1934 All. 499 (3) AIR 1931 Sind 94 (4) AIR 1933 Sind 333 (5) AIR 1937 Sind 68 Chittagong. The investigation thereafter showed that the goods placed at the disposal of the Bank were over invoiced and their value was only about Rs. 20,000. It may be mentioned that letters of credit on both the occasions were opened on a deposit of 20 per cent margin. According to the facts of the case the money was received at Chittagong by Muhammad Aslam accused, a brother of the two principal accused, who opened letters of credit at Karachi. Muhammad Aslam was alleged to have presented the false shipping documents which led to the delivery of money at Chittagong. Other accused persons, Muhammad Anwar and Muhammad Shafi, who were partners in the said Tannery, were also alleged to have shared in the wrongful gain. The sixth accused Muhammad Nabi Rasool was the Manager of the Tannery whereas the remaining two accused, namely Abdur Rauf and Muhammad Yousaf, were Clerks of the Tannery in question. The said three persons were alleged to have assisted and abetted in the despatch of short goods of inferior quality for the purpose of cheating the Bank of India Ltd., Karachi.
13. The challan against the accused persons was submitted in the Court of the S. D. M., Cantonment Karachi. The jurisdiction of the Court to proceed with the matter was challenged on the ground that some of the offences had been allegedly committed at Chittagong. The objection having been overruled by the trial Court the matter was ultimately taken up in revision by the High Court. It was held that, misrepresentation by the two principal accused persons was done at Karachi whereas the delivery of money as a consequence thereof took place at Chittagong. Under the provisions of section 179, Cr. P. C. the offence under section 420, P. P. C. was, therefore, triable either at Karachi or at Chittagong. The act of misrepresentation was committed at Karachi and if the same had not been committed delivery of the amount as involved in that case would not have been made to the accused persons, as a consequence thereof, at Chittagong.
14. In the present case the alleged discrimination with regard to promotion was made at Rawalpindi according to the allegation made by Hamid Akhtar, who insists that the letter was actually signed and issued at Rawalpindi and sent to Lahore for implementation purposes lt would show that according to the allegation made in the complaint by Hamid Akhtar act of discrimination was committed at Rawalpindi and Hamid Jhelumi took over as Editor, Daily Imroze, as a consequence thereof, at Lahore. If the said act had not been allegedly committed at Rawalpindi then question of taking over by Hamid Jhelumi as Editor had not arisen.
Therefore, so far as the preliminary evidence before the Punjab Labour Court No.ll is concerned, the same has got jurisdiction, on the basis thereof, to deal with the matter under sections 179/180 Cr. P.
C.
15. The further argument that since the complaints in both the cases are based upon the alleged animosity or opposition shown by the petitioners to both the contesting respondents, therefore, the petitioners being not employer at the relevant time i.e. June, 1974, the complaints are not maintainbJe under section 15 of the Ordinance has also no substance. The allegation as made in the complaints is that the contesting respondents have been discriminated or threatened to be removed j or discharged on account of their being members of PPL Workers' Union or their activities as such in the General Elections of the Union, meaning thereby that the person who is responsible for the discrimination or victimization shown to them will be the accused person. If such discrimination or victimization was not shown by the then Chairman in June, 1974, it doss not mean that if his successor commits this offence then he will not be proceeded against under section 15 of the Ordinance. Abdullah Malik, respondent No. 1, has alleged in his complaint as well as preliminary evidence produced by him, that he has been victimized because of his activities as a member of the Union. According to him since he opposed the petitioners Kh. Muhammad Asif and Zaheer Babar in the elections of the Union held in June, 1974, therefore, he has been made target of various excesses committed by the petitioners. It has been argued by Mr. Dost Muhammad Awan, learned counsel for the petitioners, that participation in the General Election of a Trade Union does not mean activities of the same, therefore, according to the allegation as contained in the complaint of Abdullah Malik no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner Kh. Muhammad Asif. This contention has no force. It cannot be said that the holding of General Election by a Trade Union does not amount to its activities. The word "activities" has not been defind in the Ordinance.
However, any act done in furtherance of the cause of a Trade Union would amount to its activities.
I6. It has also been argued that since Abdullah Malik has filed pethion under section 25-A of the Ordinance for the redress of his grievances, as mentioned above, therefore, his complaint in relation to the same acts, allegedly committed by the petitioner Kh. Muhammad Asif, is not competent and as such the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the same. The relevant provisions as contained in sections 15, 25-A and 53 of the Ordinance show that a workman has been allowed to seek redress of bis grievances on account of certain acts of his employer under section 25-A while if the same acts constitute an offence or offences, as the case may be, he can approach the Labour Court under section 53 for punishing the employer for contravention of the provision as contained in section 15 of the Ordinance. It shows that the remedies by way of section 25-A and section 53 of the Ordinance are simultaneous and can be availed of at the same time. The above discussion disposes of the objections put forth by the petitioners with regard to jurisdiction of the Labour Courts to proceed with the complaints filed by the contesting respondents.
17. As held in Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar and others (1) High Court can interfere with the order of a Special Tribunal if it reaches the conclusion that the said order is without lawful authority and without legal effect. The expressions "without lawful authority and of no legal effect are expressions of art and refer to jurisdictional defects as distinguished p from a mere erroneous decision, whether on a question of fact or even of law. It is well settled that where a Court or Tribunal has jurisdiction and it determines that question it cannot be said that it acted illegally or with material irregularity, merely because it came to an erroneous decision on a question of fact or even of law. The provision as contained in Article 199 of the Constitution does not empower the High Court to interfere with the decision of a Court or Tribunal of inferior jurisdiction merely because Q the same is wrong, as in that case it would make the High Court's jurisdiction as that of the appellate Court, which is not the intention of the Legislature. In the present case, so far as the question of jurisdiction of the Labour Courts is concerned, it has been found to be vesting in them on the (1) PLD 1974 SC 139 basis of the material available on record. Therefore, it would not be proper for this Court to strike down the impugned orders, based on the appraisal of the preliminary evidence, in order to find out a prima facie case against the petitioners. 18. ^ In Hassart All M. Sumro v. Chairman, WAPDA and others (l) the petitioner was proceeded against under the West Pakistan Government Servants (Efficiency and Descipline) Rules, 1960 with proper and valid sanction for very serious charges of mis-couduct and corruption. Many witnesses had been examined and the stage reached when the petitioner had to lead his defence. At this stage, when the inquiry was not complete, the petitioner rushed to the High Court and invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction. It was held that the petition being premature was not competent. It was further held that the petitioner in such cases has to satisfy the Court that he is left with no other adequate remedy under the law of the land. So far as Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, under which the complaints have been filed by the contesting respondents, is concerned, section 36 thereof lays down tbe procedure and pnwers of the Labour Court. According to subsection (3) of section 36 a Labour Court shall, for the purpose of trying an offence under the Ordinance have the same powers as are vested in the Court of a Magistrate lst Class specially empowered under section 30 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and shall for the purpose of appeal from a sentence passed by it be deemed to be a Court of Sessions under that Code. It means tnat the remedy in regard to any punishment or sentence to be awarded by the Labour Court for committing offence under the Ordinance has been provided adequately. The petitioners in the present case have rushed to the High Court after the issuance of notice to them for appearance, after prima facie case has been found against them on the basis of the preliminary evidence. They can satisfy the Labour Courts by producing evidence that the allegations as levelled in the complaints are not correct and for that reason no case can be made out against them under th e relevant provisions of the Ordinance. According to law, High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 98 of the old and 199 of the present Constitution cannot usurp the functions of the authority on which tbe power has been vested nor can it substitute its decision for the decision of said authority ; nor it can hold a decision to be without lawful authority on the ground that material on which the action has been taken does not satisfy it and it would not have itself taken the same action on the said materia). The High Court also cannot interfere with the decision of a Tribunal or an authority on the ground that another view is also possible to be taken on the basis of the material on record. Reliance in this respect can be placed upon Mrs Habiba J Hani v. Federation of Pakistan (2), Bashir Ahmad v. Government of West Pakistan (3) and Mst. Hajran v. Abdul Aziz ami 3 others (4). In A. R. NiazU Advcoate v. Pakistan and others (5) notice had been issued to the petitioner by the Additional Settlement Commissioner to show cause against the ejectment. This notice was challenged in the High Court by way of Writ Petition which was rejected. On appeal before the Supreme Court it was held that the Writ Petition in respect of the proceedings for such notice was premature as notice may or may not result in ejectment and all the pleas which had been raised before the High Court (1) PLD 1972Kar. 261 (3)
PLD 1973 Lah. 92(2) PLD 1974 Lah. 153 (4) PLD 1973 Lah. 628 (5) PLD 1968 SC 119 could be raised before the special tribunal. Similar circumstances exist in the present case. The petitioners in both the cases have rushed to the High Court against the notice issued by the Punjab Labour Courts after a prima facie case has been found against them. All the pleas which have been raised before this Court in regard to the merits of the case and which have not been adjud cated upon by me can be raised before the special tribunal, which will take them into consideration and then decide the matter.
19. According to law, exercise of power by the High t ourt under Article 98 of the late and 199 of the present Constitution can only be made in a case where it is found that there has been flagrant violation of the legal / provision or if there is no jurisdiction vested in the authority whose order has been challenged. Reference in this respect can be made to Mansoor Ahmad v. Burma Eastern Ltd (1). In that case notice had been issued to the employee by the employer to explain his absence of ten days without leave, though according to section 18 of East Pakistan Employment of Labour (Standing Orders) Act three days notice was sufficient. The said notice was received by the employee by post after lapse of seven days. He, however, did not seek extension of time from the employer for submitting his explanation nor made any grievance of want of time in his petition before the Labour Court under section 25 of the said Act. This grievance was, however, made by way of amendment, later on, in his petition. It was held that there was no violation of the relevant provision of section 18 in the circumstances of the case. The above discussion would show that there has been no flagrant violation of the legal provisions, so far as the impugned orders in both the Writ Pe'itions are concerned and the Punjab Labour Courts have got jurisdiction to proceed with the matter on the basis of the material put forth so far by the contesting respondents ; unless otherwise shown by the petitioners in their evidence.
20. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon certain authorities showing that in case of lack of jurisdiction on the part of special tribunal or authority interference should be made by the High Court. There is no dispute with regard to this principle of law. The fact, however, remains that since the jurisdiction, on the basis of the material present on record, has been found to be vesting in the Labour Courts, therefore, no such interference is called for at this stage.
21. For the aforesaid reasons there is no force in both the writ petitions which are hereby dismissed. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case parties are left to bear their own costs. i Petitions dismissed. (1) PLD 1969 Dacca 94