PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORPORATION, KARACHI through Deputy General
This Constitution petition challenges the orders of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application seeking the rejection of a grievance petition filed by an employee. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court at Hyderabad possessed the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition concerning the termination of an employee who worked at the Limestone Project in Makli, District Thatta. The petitioner had sought rejection of the petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arguing a lack of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court held that a petition cannot be rejected solely for want of territorial jurisdiction; rather, it should be returned for presentation before the competent court under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that since the cause of action, in whole or in part, accrued where the employee was serving at the time of termination, the Labour Court at Hyderabad maintained jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petition was dismissed in limine.
- Can a grievance petition be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 solely for lack of territorial jurisdiction?
- What is the appropriate procedure when a court lacks territorial jurisdiction to hear a petition?
- Does a Labour Court have jurisdiction over a service termination dispute if the cause of action accrued within its territorial limits?
- Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
- Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Order VII Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908
- Section 20(c), Code of Civil Procedure 1908
ORDER
' This Constitution petition is directed against the orders passed by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi, upholding the orders passed by Labour Court No, VI, Hyderabad.
2. The facts relevant for the purposes of this petition are that respondent No, 1 is an employee of present petitioner working in their Limestone Project at Makli and that for the reason mentioned in the order terminating his service he was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the respondent No, 1 had instituted grievance petition after serving a due notice under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969, before respondent No, 2 at Hyderabad. During the proceedings the present petitioner moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C., praying for rejection of the grievance petition for the reasons that Hyderabad Court had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter. The learned respondent No,2 after discussing the matter at length had held that the Hyderabad Court also had territorial jurisdiction in the matter as the respondent No, 1 was employed at Limestone Project at Makli, which falls within the District of Thatta and in the territorial jurisdiction of Hyderabad Court. Being aggfieved, the petitioners had filed the appeal before the respondent No, 3, which was also dismissed. Thus the petitioner have moved this Constitution petition.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. At the very outset we may observe that a petition cannot be rejected for want of territorial jurisdiction under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. If it be so then also it has to be returned under Order 7, Rule 10, C.P.C. For presentation before Competent Court having jurisdiction. However, the question in the present case involves the occurrence of cause of action and it is to be determined as to where the cause of action accrues. It may be observed that the words "cause of action" means bundle of facts giving rise to a right which the plaintiff will have to prove if controverted or traversed by the defendant. This also involves the infringement of such right". In the present case it is an admitted position that at the time the service of the respondent No,1 were terminated he was serving the project at Makli. The provisions of section ,20 clause (c) of the Civil Procedure Code, provides that a suit can also be filed where cause of action in whole or in part accrues. In these circumstances we are of the view that the orders passed by the respondents Nos.2 and 3 need no interference. Accordingly the petition is dismissed in limine alongwith miscellaneous applications.
Cited by 3 cases
- SICPA SA vs Federation of Pakistan and four others 2021 SHC 1014
- MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD vs GHULAM MUSTAFA CHANNA 2006 PLC 247
- SHAFI MUHAMMAD vs PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT NO. VI AT 1996 PLC 446