1. MUHAMMAD ROSHAN ESSANI, J.--- By this Constitutional petition, the petitioner Rehman Ali has sought following relief:--
(a) To declare order/decision passed by the respondents 4 and 5 as void and the same are liable to be set aside.
(b) That it may further be declared that Sindh Labour Court No.VII, Sukkur has jurisdiction to entertain and proceed the grievance petition of petitioner as the dismissal order dated 3-9-2000 communicated by the respondent No.3 is actually passed by the respondent No.2 being the competent authority having its Circle Office at Sukkur.
(c) Cost of the petition.
(d) Any other relief which this Honourable Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts as disclosed in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Guard in the year 1993 and promoted as Cashier in the year 1994. Lastly he .was working at Sadiqabad Punjab.
3. The respondent No.3 sought explanation from the petitioner through the letter, dated 28-7-1999 with regard to the embezzlement of Rs.50,000, which were found short in the cash. After receipt of explanation, enquiry was ordered, with the result the petitioner was dismissed by order, dated 3-9- 1999 passed by respondent No . 3.
4. Against the order of dismissal grievance notice as envisaged under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was served upon the competent authority i.e. respondent No.2 but no reply was sent therefore, the petitioner filed grievance petition before the Sindh Labour Court No.VII, Sukkur, which was dismissed in limine by order, dated 3-3-2000.
5. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of Sindh Labour Court No.VII, Sukkur preferred revision application under section 38(3-A) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The revision application was also dismissed on 21-10-2000.
6. I have heard Mr. S. Manzar Alam learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner and perused the material placed on record as well as the impugned order.
7. It will be pertinent to reproduce hereinbelow the impugned order dated 3-3-2000 passed by the Sindh Labour Court No.VII, Sukkur:-- "Order 3-3-2000.
8. Applicant is present with his counsel Mr. Manzar Alam. Today grievance application is fixed for hearing counsel on the point of admission/jurisdiction. Heard counsel for the applicant and perused the grievance application alongwith photostat copies of documents. It reveals that at the time of dismissal, the applicant was posted at M.C.B., Railway Road Branch, Sadiqabad under the control of Regional Manager, Rahimyar Khan. All correspondence including letter of explanation, letter of enquiry and letter of dismissal also issued by Regional Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank, Rahimyar Khan. Therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction to proceed the matter further, hence the grievance application is dismissed in limine as unadmitted."
9. The operative part of the second impugned order, dated 21-10-2000 passed by the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal is also reproduced hereinbelow for convenience sake:-- "The factual aspect of the above order is not denied by the Advocate for the petitioner inasmuch as that the applicant was posted at M.C.B., Railway Road Branch, Sadiqabad at the time of his dismissal and further all correspondence relating to his case including letter of explanation, letter of enquiry and letter of dismissal were all issued by Regional Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank, Rahimyar Khan. Despite this the learned counsel insists that Sukkur Labour Court has necessary jurisdiction to hear the case of Rehmat Ali. He has not been able to convince the Court as to how and on what basis the Sukkur Labour Court has the jurisdiction."
10. The perusal of orders reproduced hereinabove shows that both the Courts below dismissed the grievance petition as well as revision for want of jurisdiction.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has put great emphasis upon section 25-A and section 36 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The perusal of both the provisions of law shows that the procedure has been prescribed therein for exhausting the remedy.
12. Consequently these provisions are of no avail to the petitioner so for relief sought in Constitutional jurisdiction is concerned.
13. There is no cavil about the fact that the embezzlement if any was detected in M.C.B., Branch at Sadiqabad Punjab. The show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner by Regional Manager, M.C.B., Rahimyar Khan. The reply of the same was sent by the petitioner to him. The services of the petitioner were terminated by the Regional Manager, Rahimyar Khan. Thus, the cause of action if any was accrued to the petitioner, it was within the jurisdiction of the Court where the petitioner was lastly posted and working for gain, therefore, the Courts in the Province of Sindh are devoid of jurisdiction.
14. Moreover, there are concurrent findings of two Courts below. It is well-settled that concurrent findings can only be disturbed in Constitutional jurisdiction when there is patent illegality in the order or Court act without jurisdiction.
15. The upshot of the above discussion is that petition merits no consideration, therefore, it stands dismissed in limine with no order as to costs.