DECISION ' This is an application under section 38(3-A) read with section 38(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as amended by Labour Laws Amendment Ordinance, 1977, praying that this Appellate Tribunal will call for the record and proceedings in the present case from the Sind Labour Court No, V, Karachi and revise the impugned order of that Court declining to decide the question of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue.
2. Briefly, the facts giving rise to this matter are that the respondent, Mr. Muhammad Siddique Rabi who was an employee with the appellant-Company was charge-sheeted for committing acts of misconduct in respect of which the Martial Law Authorities after conducting an inquiry on their own into the charges levelled against the said respondent on 12-5-1977 passed an order through the Deputy Sub-Martial Law Administrator No, IV, Korangi, Karachi, granting permission to the appellants to expel the respondent from their service which was done by the appellants. Aggrieved by this order, the respondent approached the Sind Labour Court No, V with an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and notice was issued thereon to the present appellants. The Representative of the appellants appeared and raised a preliminary objection that the Sind Labour Court No, V has no jurisdiction to try this case. It was therefore prayed that this question of jurisdiction should first be decided but the learned Labour Court rejected this application adding that "in the interest of justice I allow the respondents to agitate the point of jurisdiction at the time of final argument." It is as against this order that the present application is filed.
3. I have heard Mr. M. A. Ghani on behalf of the appellants and he has cited before me a plethora of reported cases commencing with a riding of our Supreme Court reported in 1973 S. C M R 62 wherein the then Chief Justice of Pakistan Mr. Hamoodur Rehman, C.
3., has held that "the jurisdiction of a Tribunal is determinable at the commencement and not at the conclusion of the inquiry." In view of this weighty pronouncement it is perhaps unnecessary for me to refer to the other rulings cited in Court today.
4. I have also heard Mr. A. H. Rini on behalf of the respondent and be has frankly stated in Court that he has no objection to this question of jurisdiction being first decided provided that if it should become necessary for the Labour Court to take any evidence on this limited question of jurisdiction, that Court is at liberty to do so.
5. This submission of Mr. Rizvi was concurred in by Mr. M. A. Ghani and consequently a consent order was announced in Court by me to the effect that this revision petition is allowed and the question of jurisdiction in this matter vesting in the Labour Court will be decided by that Court , as a preliminary issue, the Court being at liberty to record evidence on t limited question should it feel it necessary to do so.