DECISION ' Aggrieved by the Order, dated 23rd November, 1999 of Sindh Labour Court No,III, Karachi, the appellant Sufi Muhammad Suleman has preferred this appeal. His case as stated in his grievance petition is that he was appointed in the respondent-Company as worker on 1-3-1988. Since then he performed his duties to the entire satisfaction of his employer. However, due to negligence of the officials of respondent-Company decoity was committed in the respondents' Factory in which the salaries/wages of workers were looted. He wrote a letter to Lahore High Court and other relevant authorities through the said Court informing them about the dacoity. It was prayed in the letter that alternate arrangement be made for payment of salaries/wages to the employees concerned. The letter was written with bona fide intention on the Letter Head of the respondent-Company.
Somehow the respondent Management got annoyed by his letter so much so that they were bent upon removing him from service. As a result he was placed under suspension and served with statement of Allegations containing acts and omission purporting to amount to misconduct though all such allegations were past and closed transaction and no enquiry was ever held against him on basis of such material. The appellant challenged his Suspension Order but it was not being final Order his case was not admitted. Then enquiry was held by Mr. Muhammad Naazar Khan who was performing his duties as Administrator of the respondent-Company. He was the person who not only signed Reply Statement and gave him Statement of Allegations but also acted as Enquiry Officer. The appellant participated in the enquiry but his statement was not recorded nor statement of any other witness was recorded in his presence. As such the so-called Enquiry Report was not based on any iota of evidence or findings but it was rather based merely on conjectures and surmises. The appellant was given show-cause notice dated 25-9-1998 and the same was replied by letter dated 29-8-1998. The appellant was ultimately dismissed vide letter dated 28-7-1999 declaring him at the same time as persona non grata (unacceptable person).
Thereafter, the appellant served grievance notice dated 14-9-1999 and the respondent Management replied the same by their letter dated 25-9-1999. As they refused to redress the appellants grievance, he filed grievance petition with the result mentioned above.
2. In their preliminary objections the respondent Management took the plea that the affairs of Taj Company Limited including its subsidiaries were taken over by Lahore High Court in "Civil Original No, 45 of 1990 (Government of Pakistan v. Taj Company Limited and others) who in pursuance of section 292 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 appointed Muhammad Naazar Khan as Administrator of the demised Company to conduct its affairs under the strict control and supervision of Lahore High Court as stated above. It was further contended in the Preliminary Objections that as provided in section 316 of the Ordinance hereinabove, the jurisdiction of Labour Court was barred unless the petitioner (Sufi Muhammad Suleman) had himself obtained leave of the Lahore High Court for filing of the petition that he had filed in the said Labour Court. In support of this assertion the respondent Management produced the orders of Companies Division of Lahore. High Court passed in the appellant's case appearing on the Order Sheet of the said Court. It is dated 20-7-1999. In consequence of that Order the services of the appellant were terminated by Order dated 28-7-1999.
3. It appears from the impugned order of the Labour Court that when the appellant was given notice of the Preliminary Objections raised by the respondent Management, he raised no objection for keeping the proceedings of his grievance petition in abeyance until he had approached the High Court and obtained leave required by section 316 hereinabove. The learned Labour Judge after hearing the arguments of the Advocates of the parties dismissed the appellant's petition as being not maintainable without leave of the High Court.
4. I have heard the arguments of the Advocates of both the parties on the question of jurisdiction of Labour Court and have also glanced through the relevant documents- available in the case file. In his connection my attention was invited to subsection (1) of section 316 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, which reads as under:-- "Section 316: Suits stayed on winding up order.--(1) When a winding up order has been made or a Provisional Manager has been appointed, no suit or other legal proceedings shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company except by leave of the Court and subject to such terms as the Court may impose."
' It is an admitted position that the affairs of Taj Company Limited including its subsidiaries have been taken over by the Lahore High Court and Mr. Muhammad Naazar Khan who has been appointed as Administrator of the demised Company was running its affairs under the strict control and supervision of Lahore High Court. This was done only after section 316 reproduced hereinabove applicable to the respondent-Company. Consequently no suit or any other legal proceeding could be filed or proceeded with against the responder company except by leave of the Lahore High Court. Confronted with this situation Mr. Rafiullah the learned counsel of the appellant perhaps had no alternative but to admit that in view of applicability of section 316(1) hereinabove to the respondent-Company necessary application was made for obtaining leave of Lahore High Court for the grievance petition which had already been filed by the appellant in Sindh Labour Court No,III. He further stated in Court that since the appellant could not afford to bear the expenses of his trip to Lahore and his stay there for obtaining the necessary Order of the High Court his application was sent by post. Mr. Rafiullah was frank in admitting that though he had not seen the Order passed by Lahore .High Court on the appellant's said application. Yet he had definite information that appellant's application for leave was turned down. This was also confirmed by the Advocate and Administrator of the respondent-Company Mr. Muhammad Naazar Khan. It was not claimed by the appellant or his Advocate that any appeal was filed against the decision of Lahore High Court or even he intended to file such appeal. Thus, the order of the Lahore High Court whereby the appellant's request for leave for filing the grievance petition was declined attained finality.
' Fore the reason that the Lahore High Court declined to accord leave for appellant's grievance petition the Sindh Labour Court No,III in which the appellant had filed his grievance petition had no jurisdiction to entertain much less decide his grievance petition. Accordingly the impugned order whereby the Labour Court dismissed the grievance petition was unexceptionable. While upholding the said Order the appeal filed against it is hereby dismissed.