' The petitioner who claims to be elected General Secretary of Larkana Sugar Mills Limited Employees' Union (hereinafter referred to as the union) has filed this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution, 1973 challenging the orders passed by Labour Courts at Larkana and Hyderabad through which his application under scction 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which were not entertained by both the Labour Courts on the grounds of jurisdiction. The petitioner has pray for the following ralief:-- "It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court will be pleased to hold and declare that both Labour Courts Nos. VI and VIII at Hyderabad and Larkana respectively have jurisdiction in the matter and Orders dated 15-6-1995 (Annexure P/1) passed by learned respondent No, 2 and dated 9-7,1995, passed by learned respondent No, 1 are of no legal effect and set aside the same and/or award any other relief as deemed just and proper."
2. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that on 29th March, 1995 internal elections of the union were held and the result was communicated to the Deputy Director Labour, Larkana as well as to the Registrar, Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region. It is further averred in the petition that on 2nd April, 1995, the petitioner asked respondent No, 3, namely, Registrar, Trade Unions to accept the change and for issuance of necessary order. The respondent No, 3 instead of accepting the change in the union issued a show-cause notice dated 19th April, 1995 calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why election results were not communicated within the stipulated time of Form A Schedule I of the IRO, 1969 and that the Executive Committee was not constituted in accordance with the provision of the bye-laws of the union.
3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above said order of the Registrar, Trade Unions filed an application under section 8 (7) of IRO, 1969 before the Labour Court No, VIII, Larkana which was ruturned to the petitioner for presentation to the Court having jurisdiction through an order dated 15th June, 1995. It was held by the Labour Court at Larkana that since the Head Office of the respondent No, 3 , namely, Registrar, Trade Unions was situated in Hyderabad as such the Labour Court at Larkana has no jurisdiction. Thereafter the petitioner filed same petition before the Labour Court No VI at Hyderabad. This time, the application was again returned to the petitioner on the same ground that Labour Court at Larkana has jurisdiction.
4. I have heard Mr. Syed Fasahat Hussain Rizvi, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Nadir Khan Yousufzai, Deputy Director Labour, Hyderabad who has appeared on behalf of respondent No, 3.
Notice was also issued to the learned Assistant Advocate-General, Sindh who appeared and assisted the Court in this matter. At the very outset Mr. Nadir Khan Yousufzai has raised objection as to the maintainabillity of this petition on the ground that the petitioner should have filed before the Labour Appellate Tribunal as constituted under section 38 of the IRO, 1969.
5. The learned Additional Advocate-General, Sindh as well as respondent No, 3 have argued that according to the bye-laws of the union, the so-called elections as held in the month of February, 1995 were for one year which period has expired now and therefore, this petition has become infructuous and according to the respondents, it is liable to be dismissed. They have also argued that the so-called elections as claimed by the petitioner were entirely sham and bogus elections inasmuch as the respondent No, 3 had received initial intimation of change for only five office- bearers. According to the respondent No, 3, on 2nd April, 1995 after issuance of the show-cause notice to the petitioner he submitted a list of 20 office-bearers to fill in the lacuna in the first request for accepting the change. In background of these circumstances, it is vehemantly prayed that this petition be dismissed in limine with cost.
6. Mr. Fasahat Hussain Rizvi has stated in reply to the above objections that he is aggrieved on the question of jurisdiction of both the Labour Courts and that he has not filed this petition on merits. Be that as it may, the respondent shall be entitled to raise the above factual position before the concerned Labour Court provided the proceedings under section 8(7) of IRO, 1969 is admitted by the said Labour Court,
7. Appeal against the awards and decision of the Labour Court is provided under section 37 (3) of the IRO, 1969. This subsection provides that any party, if aggrieved by an award given under subsection (1) or by a decisions given under section 25-A, section 34 or by a sentence passed under clause (c) of subsection (5) of section 35, may prefer an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal within 30 days. Subsection (4) of section 37 extends finality to all other decisions, sentences passed by a Labour Court. In the instant case, the application of the petitioner filed under section 8 (7) of IRO, 1969 , was not entertained by both the Labour Court and, in my view, the orders passed by the Labour Court are not sustainable and, therefore, this petition is maintainable.
Even otherwise since both the Labour Courts have failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in the said Courts, the petition is maintainable.
8. That the Labour Courts have referred to the two decisions of this Court while pass their respective orders. In the case of Pakistan Warehouse Carriers Workers' Union and another v. Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No, V, Karachi and 2 others (1982 PLC 528) it was held by a learned Single Judge of this Court that jurisdiction of the Labour Court in respect of an appeal against the order of Registrar, Trade Unions refusing change in office-bearer is to be determined with reference to territory in which Head Office of such Registrar, Trade Unions falls and not with reference to different sub-offices in different parts of city. In the case of Mazdoor Itehad Union Star Textile Mills and another v. Third Sindh Labour Court and 4 others (1983 PLC 491) it was held by another learned Single Judge of this Court that the Labour Court within whose jurisdiction the Mill is situated shall have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal filed under section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. However, there is a recent decision of Division Bench of this Court reported as Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation, Karachi v. Nisar Ahmad Memon and 2 others (1995 PLC 57) wherein an objection was raised that since the Head Office of the petitioner is situated at Karachi as such the Labour Court at Hyderabad has no jurisdiction. The Division Bench of this Court held as follows:- - "However, the question in the present case involves the occurrence of cause of action and it is to be determined as to where the cause of action accrues. It may be observed that the words "cause of action" mean bundle of facts giving rise to a right which the plaintiff will have to prove if controverted or traversed by the defendant. This also involves the infringement of such right". In the present case it is an admitted position that at the time the service of the respondent No, 1 were terminated he was serving the project at Makli. The provisions of section 20, clause (c) of the Civil Procedure Code, provide that a suit can also be filed where cause of action in whole or in part accrues.
9. In support of the above view as held in the case of Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation, I would like to refer section 36(2) of the IRO, 1969 which provides that a Labour Court for the purpose of adjudication and determining any industrial dispute 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 including the powers of enforcing attendance, compelling the production of documents and issuing commission for examination of witnesses. I may further refer to a case of Messrs Merck Sharp & Dhome of Pakistan Ltd. v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 others (1982 PLC 148) where a Division Binch of this Court comprising of Mr. Ajmal Mian and G M. Korejo, JJ. (as they then were) took the same view.
10. There is another authority of a Division Bench of this Court which supports the view that under certain circumstances two Labour Courts enjoy jurisdiction which are concurrent and it is the discretion of the parties to invoke either of the said jurisdictions. Reference is made to the case of Sindh Alkalis Ltd. v. Fourth Sindh Labour Court and others (1983 PLC 1220), decided by a Division Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Ajmal Mian and Mr. Saleem Akhtar, JJ. (as their Lordships then were). In this reported case, the respondent/employee was working at the factory situated at Landhi while the Head Office of the appellant was situated at I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi. An objection was raised on the maintainability of the petition on the ground of territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court which was overruled. Consequently, appellants went to the Labour Appellate Tribunal and being aggrieved by the said order, they preferred the Constitutional petition before this Court which was dismissed in limine. In such circumstances, it was held that both the Labour Courts have concurrent jurisdiction as the factory was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of one Labour Court while the Head Office of the Mill was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the other Labour Court. The rule laid down in the Sindh Alkalis Ltd. Supports the view that section 20(c) of the C.P.C. Is fully attracted before the Labour Courts while deciding the question of jurisdiction arising out of multiple causes of action.
11. There is no provision in the Industrial Ralations Ordinance, 1969 which provides determination of question of jurisdiction to the Labour Courts. Under section 35 of the IRO the Provincial Government is competent to establish as many as Labour Courts by notification in the Official Gazette and it is through such notification that the territorial limits of these Labour Courts are determined. In the instant case, since the petitioners workers' union and the concerned Mill are situated within the territorial limits of Labout Court at Larkana and since the Head Office of the Registrar, Trade Unions is also situated at Hyderabad, therefore, both the Courts have jurisdiction in view of section 20 (c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
' In view of the above findings, this petition stands disposed of.