Messrs ENERGOINWEST Versus JAHANDAD KHAN

1. C4/s. Evergoinwest, appellant, has come up in appeal against the decision dated 14‑3‑1973 delivered by Mr. M.A. Razzaq, Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court No.l, Lahore, whereby the petition of the respondent was accepted and the appellant was ordered to pay difference between the pay which the respondent used to get from the appellant and the pay which he had been getting in the military while re‑called on active service.

2. The objection taken in the appeal is that the Lahore Labour Courts have no jurisdiction, because the respondent was posted at Muzaffargarh before he went on active service and was again posted there when he seas discharged from the military. Admittedly the Head Office is at Lahore and at Muzaffargarh is only ‑the site office. The prayer of the petitioner is only for the payment of difference in the pay which he was getting in the appellant company and in the military, ad hoc relief, over time, house rent allowance, medical allowance and bonus. The cause of grievance could arise to the respondent when the amounts claimed by him were refused. If the cause of grievance accrued to the respondent at Muzaffargarh, the Junior Labour Court, Muzaffargarh had jurisdiction but since admittedly the Head Office is at Lahore, according to Section 20 Clause (a) the Lahore Courts have also jurisdiction. It was therefore, the sweet will of the respondent to bring action either at Muzaffargarh or at Lahore and if he chose the Lahore forum, it cannot be said that the Lahore Labour Courts have no territorial jurisdiction. From the record it does not appear when the respondent conveyed the decision to the appellant that he was not entitled to the benefits claimed by him, Sop it is doubtful if the Muzaffargarh Labour Court has jurisdiction but since admittedly the Head Office is at Lahore and at Muzaffargarh is only site office which cannot be said to be a branch or a regular office, only the Lahore Courts have jurisdiction. I, therefore, agree with the learned lower Court that it had territorial jurisdiction to hear the case.

3. So far as the question of recovery of the difference of pay between the one the respondents was receiving as civilian from the appellant and the one which he had been receiving from the military while on active service, letter PB is quite clear and the appellant is liable to pay the difference which amounts to Rs.210.The respondents pay was Rs.400 when he was serving the appellant but he was paid Rs.190 per month only during the period he remained on active service. According to letter PC he is entitled to ad hoc relief @ 10% amounting to Rs.40. So he is entitled to Rs.250 from the period he relinquished charge in the appellant concern and when he reported on duty. He is entitled to house rent and medical allowance also. If bonus was given to other employees, he is also entitled, to the same for the said period. The lower Court has allowed Rs.50.0 more but has not give any reason for it. I, therefore, hold that the respondent is entitled only to the difference of pay, 10% ad hoc relief, house rent and medical allowance and bonus if allowed to the other workers. I modify the order of the lower Court accordingly And accept the appeal only to this extent.

4. M. Y. H./515/Lb,P Appeal partly allowed.