' The revision petition is directed against the order dated 10-8-1994, passed by Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore, dismissing the objections raised by the PERI Employees' Union, Punjab, as respondent before the Labour Court, against competence of the complaint, having been filed by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Punjab; under section 10(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Learned counsel for' or the parties have been heard at length.
2. The Registrar had sought permission of the Court to cancel registration, of the aforesaid union.
Such complaint was instituted originally in the year 1990. It was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25-7-1991. The Registrar came up with another complaint Annexure B (No,124/91). The union filed its reply in detail on 22-7-1992 (Annexure C), raising a number of preliminary objections. Afterwards, on 4-4-1993, the union submitted an application making a request that the preliminary objections pertaining to jurisdiction of the Court and maintainability of the matter be decided first, before proceeding with case on merits. Annexure E is the reply submitted by the complainant thereto.
3. The stand-point of the union did not find favour with the learned Labour Court and the aforesaid application was rejected on 10-8-1994 (Annexure F). The submissions made in the lower Court by the Employees' Union have been repeated in the present revision petition pending before this Tribunal. I have given the matter my anxious consideration. Leanied counsel representing the Registrar has laboured a lot in laying hands upon enough of case-law on the subject and to support his contention that the objection taken up by the union has no substance and force. PLD 1965 SC 310, 1973 SCMR 62, 1989 CLC 1252, PLD 1989 Lah. 546 (549), 1991 CLC Note 216 at p. 169 and NLR 1991 Civil 593 are the rulings relied upon by the learned counsel. It is urged that the place where the wrongful act has been done or the alleged injury has been caused would determine the jurisdiction of the forum concerned. Objection regarding territorial jurisdiction may even be waived. In paragraph 5(b) of the revision petition, the union has taken up the stand that on its behalf no conceding statement had been made and the learned lower Court had grossly erred in recording such admission on the part of the union in that regard.
Learned counsel for the respondent maintains that the petitioner has now taken a somersault and the object is to prolong the proceedings over as long a period as is possible, although it is so well known that in the process of distribution of work a Court may be entrusted with a case that does not strictly fall within its territorial jurisdiction. Erroneous assumption of jurisdiction would constitutionally an irregularity and would not render the proceedings or the result thereof as ultra vires or illegal, as has been pronounced in PLD 1955 Lahore 280, with reference to section 21 of Code of Civil Procedure. It is not denied that when the complaint was lodged under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the Registrar's office was situate at 6-A, Canal Park, Gulberg, Lahore, and the cases pertaining to P.S. Gulberg were to be dealt with by Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore. Actually, at that time, P.S. Muslim Town was also attached with the said Court. Subsequently, readjustment of work, with reference to different police stations, was undertaken. Registrar's office was also shifted to 62-D, New Muslim Town, Lahore. Employees' Union continues to operate its office in the same premises, namely, 31-Q, Gulberg-II, Lahore.
4. Jurisdiction of the Court will be determined with reference to the position prevailing at the time of institution of a cause. It will undergo no change, unless in the relevant notification it is specifically provided that even the pending eases will stand transferred to another Court.
5. In the notification issued on 11-2-1985 by the Labour Department of the Government of the Punjab, Lahore the jurisdictional limits of Punjab Labour Courts Nos.1 and 3 refixed, but there was no change as regards the jurisdiction of Punjab Labour Court No,2, Lahore. P.S. Gulberg falls within the jurisdiction of Labour Court No,1. A new police station, P.S. Ghalib Market, in the area of Gulberg, Lahore has been set up and the office of the union now falls within the territory of that police station. The notification does not make mention of this police station, and actually such mention .
Could not be there, as the aforementioned police station, as already said, came into being afterwards. Union has been transacting its business over there, but the office of the Registrar, Trade Unions, Lahore wields jurisdiction throughout the district and even beyond that. No matter its location has been shifted from Canal Park, Gulberg, to a bungalow in New Muslim Town, Lahore, it will not make any material difference. In the abovestated notification, P.S. New Muslim Town does not find mention anywhere, as probably this police station was also set up on a subsequent date.
6. I would not agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order would lose its sanctity and soundness, for the simple reason that it was rendered by the Court below without recording any evidence. Where was the need to take down any evidence? The jurisdictional limits of different police stations have clearly been delineated, and recording of oral evidence would, indeed, turn out to be a meaningless and a useless exercise. The mere fact that the lower Court had found itself disinclined to call upon the parties to lead evidence in regard to the issue of jurisdiction would not make the impugned order a laconic or faulty one, as the same really would constitute no lapse on the part of the Court below. Why should the Court have rejected the complaint or returned it for want of territorial jurisdiction, when it was seized of it and had been proceeding with it in regular manner? Even if there could be inferred any defect in cognizance of the matter by Labour Court No,1, I would, as the controlling. Authority and as an appellate forum, direct Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore to proceed with the matter and decide it on merits at a very early date, as the registration of the union, in question, was sought to be rescinded by the registrar in as back as 1991, and it is now 1996, and although several years have elapsed, no material progress has been achieved in the proceedings, which may henceforth be carried out on day-to- day or weekly basis and all unnecessary adjournments shall be avoided. Delaying tactics adopted by any party to the litigation will have to be consciously and strictly curbed, so that further progress in the proceedings is not arrested and the matter is taken to its conclusion without wastage of any time.
7. The revision petition, being without merit, is hereby dismissed. Records of the lower Court, if requisitioned, shall be sent back without delay.