MAULVI OCEANWARD, J.~. Feeling aggrieved of an order terminating his services the petitioner find a grievance petition under Section 25-A of IRO, 1969 before a learned Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad.
The respondents were summoned who took an objection that the said learned Labour Court had no territorial jurisdiction as according to the respondents the petitioner was. Working at Quetta and his services were terminated while he was working at Quetta. The objection found favour with the learned Labour Court and the grievance petition of the petitioner was disposed of on 6.1 1.1 997 with the-observation that the petitioner should approach the appropriate forum. Against this order the petitioner find: an appeal which was heard by the learned Chairman of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore who proceeded to dismiss the same on 17.4.2000.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was charge sheeted while he was performing his duties at Faisalabad, the inquiry was also conducted at Faisalabad and that it was thereafter that he was transferred to Quetta where he received the termination order. According to the learned counsel the cause of action or at least a part of it had accrued at Faisalabad and as such the learned Labour Court at the said place had the jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that since the termination order was served when the petitioner was serving at Quetta, the entire cause of action accrued at Quetta and as such Labour Court at Faisalabad did not have the jurisdiction.
3. I have gone through the copies of the records appended with this W.P. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. The copy of grievance petition is available on pages 31 to 36 of the file, It is stated in para 2 thereof that the petitioner was working under the control of the Branch Manager Bolan Bank Ltd., Faisalabad; that his services were confirmed on 31.1.1996 w.e.f. 2.4.94; that a charge sheet was served on 22.5.96 which was replied on 30.5.96 and an inquiry was conducted and thereafter the termination order dated 4.8.96 was issued. The petition then states the grounds for the relief claimed by the petitioner, In reply to para 2 of the petition it has been stated that the petitioner was employed as Incharge/Grade-ll, Officer at Faisalabad Branch and was transferred to Headquarter at Quetta vide a letter dated 17.6.1996 where the petitioner joined and was served with a final show-cause notice on 10.7.96.
4. Needless to state that "cause of action" means the entire bundle of facts which a petitioner is required to prove, if denied by the other party. Now it is a matter on record that the petitioner was serving at the Faisalabad Branch; that the charge sheet was served on him with reference to performance of his duties at the said branch, the inquiry was conducted at Faisalabad. It is true that the petitioner was serving in Quetta when the termination order was served but this does not mean that no part of cause of action has accrued at Faisalabad. By virtue of Section 36 of IRO, 1969 a Labour Court While adjudicating and determining an industrial dispute is deemed to be a civil Court. Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a suit may be instituted in a Court within the local limits of jurisdiction whereof the cause of action wholly or any part arises.
Explanation II to the said Section provides that a corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole office in Pakistan or in respect of any cause of action arisen at any place where it has also a subordinate office at such place. Admittedly the respondent bank which is a corporation has a subordinate office at Faisalabad where a part of cause of action has arisen.
5. In view of the above discussion I do find that the learned Labour Court and the learned Appellate Tribunal have acted without lawful authority while refusing to hear the grievance of the petitioner by holding that the Labour Court at Faisalabad had no jurisdiction. This W.P. Is accordingly allowed; The impugned orders are declared to be without lawful authority and are set aside, the result would be that the grievance petition find by the petitioner shall be deemed to be pending before the learned Labour Court at Faisalabad and shall be heard and decided in accordance with law.
No orders as to costs. A copy of this order be immediately remitted to the learned Labour Court, Faisalabad.