' This is an appeal against the decision dated 18-12-1976 of Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore.
2. The respondent was employed as a Telephone Operator In the Office of the Managing Director, Pioneer Steel Mills Ltd., Associated Chambers, Link McLeod Road, Lahore. On 18-5-1976 at 11-30 a m.
He is alleged to have incited the other workers to go on strike. He is also alleged to have threatened the officers and other staff to leave the office premises. After getting the office vacated, he locked up the main door and took possession of the keys. Shortly after the above incident the police came and after recovering keys opened up the office and arrested the respondent. He was charge- sheeted on 22-5-1976. He replied to the charge-sheet, denying the charges. Since his explanation was found unsatisfactory, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to hold the enquiry vide letter dated 27- 5-1976 Exh. P-4. He objected to the appointment of the Inquiry Officer. The Management ride letter &h. P-5 changed the Inquiry Officer and, thereafter, an enquiry was held in which the respondent participated. The Inquiry Officer found the respondent guilty and as a result thereof, he was dismissed from service on 12-6-76.
3. The respondent filed a petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on 22- 5-1976 before the Labour Court for re-instatement with back benefits.
4. The Labour Court accepted his petition in to vide decision under appeal.
5. Aggrieved by the above decision, Messrs Pioneer Steel Mills. Ltd., appellants have preferred this appeal.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that Punjab Labour Court No, 2 had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, because the office of the Managing Director is situated in Associated Chambers Link McLeod Road, Lahore, which is in the jurisdiction of Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore. This objection was also taken before the Labour Court, which overruled it. At the time when the respondent was dismissed and he filed the petition before the Labour Court, subsection
(6) of section 25-k of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was still in force. According to 'it, the petition should have been filed in the Labour Court having jurisdiction in the area in which the establishment is situated.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that since the Pioneer Steel Mills was situated within the jurisdiction of Punjab Labour Court No, 2, the said Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition. This contention has no force because the office of the Managing Director is a separate establishment from the Pioneer Steel Mills.
8. II is well established that the question of jurisdiction can be taken at any stage and that the order passed becomes void ab initio, illegal and all the proceedings are, therefore, without lawful authority. In the case of Mensal, Ali v. Amir and 3 others, it was observed :- "It is an elementary principle that if a mandatory condition for the exercise of jurisdiction by a Court, tribunal on authority is not fulfilled, then the entire proceedings which follow become illegal and suffer from want of jurisdiction. Any orders passed in continuation of these proceedings in appeal or revision equally suffer from illegality and are without jurisdiction."
9. In the case, Rashid Ahmad v. The State, it was held "If a mandatory condition for the exorcise of a jurisdiction before a Court, tribunal or authority is not fulfilled, then the entire proceedings which follow become illegal and suffer from want of jurisdiction. Any order passed in continuation of these proceedings in appeal or revision equally suffer from illegality and are without jurisdiction."
10. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relied on the judgment in the case, Nawab Khan and another v. Warts Iqbal and 5 others, wherein it was observed :- "A perusal of Mr. Nagar's order, dated 23.11-1963, shows that both the parties appeared before him, filed documents in support of their respective petitions and were heard by him through their counsel. No objection appears to have been taken at any stage of the proceedings in which the respondents fully participated. Feeling dissatisfied with this order they could not be permitted to turn round and question his jurisdiction."
11. In the instant case the facts are quite different because the appellant had challenged the jurisdiction of the Labour Court which fact is also mentioned in its order, therefore, this authority will not be applicable.
12. In view of the above I hold that Punjab Labour Court No, 2 had no jurisdiction to entertain the respondent's petition and as such the C entire proceedings had become illegal and suffered from want of jurisdiction.
13. Even on merits the respondent has no case at all. From the perusal of the record I find that in the inquiry proceedings the respondent fully participated and he was given full opportunity to defend himself, which fact is admitted by him before the Labour Court. I also find that they were held after duly observing the procedure contained in Standing Order 15;4) and the charge-sheet clearly amounted to misconduct as defined under Standing Order 15(31 of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
14. It is well established that the Labour Courts or Tribunal cannot sit as a Court of appeal on the decision taken by the Inquiry Officer. I am fortified in this view by the judgment in the case, United Distributors Limited v. Zahfd Hussain Khan and 2 others.
15. In the case of Mohammad Shamim v. Pak Tobacco Co. Ltd. And another it was observed :- "The last contention that the Labour Court should have gone into the question whether the petitioner had committed any theft or not is also devoid of force. The Labour Court is only concerned with the question whether the action taken against the petitioner was in accordance1 2 3 4 5 with law. The question whether the petitioner committed the theft was a question of fact and could only be enquired into by the Enquiry Officer."
16. In the case of, Punjab Road Transport Board, Lahore through Its Secretary v. Fazal Elahi and another, it was observed :-- "The factual part of a domestic inquiry by the employer is open to scrutiny by the Labour Courts only to the limited extent indicated and if they at all undertake such a re-appraisal they should be well advised to inform themselves of the rules, instructions and the working methods of the Establishment in order to understand the full implications and the background in which such findings of fact have been recorded. To apply the abstract principles or standards of criminal prosecution or of a civil litigation to such proceedings in the absence of such knowledge would be doing violence to the whole infra-structure of the Labour laws."
17. In the case of Mohammad Ramzan v. Presiding officer Sind, Labour Court No, IV and 3 others, it was observed that a Labour Court can only go into the question whether the inquiry conducted was in accordance with relevant law and the question whether commission of offence fully proved or not can only to enquired into by the Inquiry Officer.
18. In the result I accept the appeal, set aside the decision of the Labour Court and dismiss the petition of the respondent filed under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. PLD 1971 SC 124 PLD 1972 SC 271 PLD 1976 SC 394 PLD 1976 Kar. 376 1975 SCMR 46 PLD 1976 Lah. 1414 PLD 1976 Kar. 1100