IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
 
 
Mr. Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali 
 
 
Mr. Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany 
 
 
Mr. Justice Dost Muhammad Khan 
 
 
 
 
Civil Appeal No.407 of 2013 
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High 
Court, Lahore dated 26.11.2012 passed in 
W.P.No.22454 of 2012) 
 
 
 
Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. 
…Appellant 
Versus 
Member NIRC and others 
…Respondents 
 
For the Appellant: 
 
Syed Naeem Bukhari, ASC 
 
For respondents 1,3-6: 
Sheikh Riaz ul Haq, ASC 
 
For respondent No.2:  
Syed Shahid Hussain, ASC 
 
Respondents No.7 & 8: 
Ex-parte 
 
Date of hearing:  
 
04.02.2014 
 
 
JUDGEMENT 
 
 
Dost Muhammad Khan, J.— In this appeal leave was 
granted by this Court vide order dated 22.04.2013 against the 
judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 26.11.2012, 
rendered in W.P.No.22454/2012, inter alia, on the following 
grounds:- 
 
 
 
 
 
“ORDER 
 
 
Syed Naeem Bokhari, learned ASC for the 
petitioner has strongly questioned the interpretation of the 
Civil Petition No.407/2013 
2 
relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, 
(in short “the IRA”) recorded in the impugned judgment. 
He contends that the view taken in the impugned 
judgment is, inter alia, result of oversight and non-reading 
of section 54(h) of the IRA. In support of his submissions 
he has made reference to another judgment dated 
10.1.2013, in writ petition No.25102/2011, passed by the 
same honourable judge in the Lahore High Court, wherein, 
according to him, on the same point, contrary view is 
taken. He has further placed reliance upon a recent order 
of this Court dated 13.02.2013, passed in Civil Appeal 
No.1150/2012 and other connected appeals, to show that 
the judgment impugned before this Court is contrary to the 
ratio of judgment delivered by this Court on the same 
point. 
2. 
Contention raised requires consideration. Leave to 
appeal is, therefore, granted. Interim order passed earlier 
shall remain operative till further orders.” 
2. 
  
Brief 
but 
relevant 
facts, 
giving 
birth 
to 
this 
controversy, are that respondents were employees of the 
appellant [PTCL], whose services were terminated on 01.09.2010 
and 16.09.2010. They filed grievance petition under section 
33(8) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 [ the PIRA 
2010] read with Standing Order No.12(3) of the Industrial and 
Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance VI of 1968 
[the ICESO Ordinance 1968] before Labour Court No.4, 
Faisalabad. The appellant filed written statement. The learned 
Labour Court after recording evidence, allowed the grievance 
petition on 22.08.2011. The appellant filed appeal against the 
said order, which is pending disposal before the learned Punjab 
Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore. 
3. 
  
In the meantime, the respondents filed contempt 
petition before the learned Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad under 
section 33(8) of PIRA 2010 read with sections 3 and 4 of the 
Civil Petition No.407/2013 
3 
Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 to implement the Labour 
Court’s order dated 22.08.2011. After receiving notice of 
contempt petition, the appellant approached the Bench of NIRC 
at Lahore for withdrawal of the contempt petition before the 
Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad. The respondent No.1 therein 
(NIRC) through order dated 26.01.2012 withdrew the contempt 
proceedings before the Labour Court No.4 and assigned the same 
to the Bench of NIRC at Lahore. The employees/respondents 
impugned the said decision of the NIRC dated 26.01.2012 
through W.P.No.22454/2012 before the Lahore High Court, 
Lahore contending therein that NIRC was having no jurisdiction 
to pass the order, referred to above, as the matter was already 
decided and concluded by the competent Court, allowing the 
grievance petition.  
4. 
  
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the 
learned Judge in Chamber held in paras 17/22 of the impugned 
judgment that the provisions of the PIRA 2010 are applicable to 
those establishments, which are working exclusively in the 
Province of Punjab and are not maintaining trans-provincial 
establishment. However, the learned Judge contrary to the above 
view in para-3 of the impugned judgment held that the 
jurisdiction of NIRC comes into play only, where there is 
allegation of unfair labour practice as defined in section 32 of the  
IRA 2012, on the part of employer or workers or trade union; 
thus, the conclusion arrived at para 24 of the impugned 
judgment, in view of the learned ASC, is clashing with and is 
contrary to the view expressed by the learned Judge in Chamber 
of the Lahore High Court given in Paras 17/22 and that the 
provisions of sections 32, 33 and 34 have been misinterpreted.  
5. 
  
Learned ASC further contends that in trans-provincial 
establishment like PTCL, all disputes including unfair practices, 
whether on the part of employer or employees/workmen, the 
Civil Petition No.407/2013 
4 
jurisdiction of the NIRC is overriding and exclusive in nature, not 
only because it is created and empowered by Federal Law, 
having super imposing effect over provincial law but also because 
if trans-provincial establishments, companies or their employees 
bring grievance petition with regard to the disputes, referred to 
above, in different Labour Courts of the Provinces, the same 
would create multiplicity and end result would be giving 
conflicting judgments by different Labour Courts and Appellate 
Tribunals and there will be no end to the litigation. The NIRC is a 
single forum at national level, upon which such jurisdiction has 
been expressly conferred by the provision of section 33 of the 
IRA 2012, whether the dispute is individual one or of collective 
nature and whether it is to be brought by the workers or through 
shop-steward or collective bargaining agents.  
6. 
  
The learned ASC also contends that the learned Judge 
in Chamber of the Lahore High Court, ignoring the above legal 
position, misinterpreted and misconstrued the provision of 
section 33(8) of the PIRA 2010 and Standing Order 12(3) of the 
ICESO Ordinance, 1968, as in his view the power of contempt 
given to the Appellate Tribunal itself or that of Labour Court is 
confined and is only relevant if the Labour Court of a particular 
Province has the jurisdiction to decide a grievance petition of a 
local company/undertaking/enterprise, having no extra provincial 
activities, establishments, industrial units or industrial activities.  
7. 
  
Learned ASC for the private respondents/employees, 
however, was of the firm view that the plain reading of the 
provision of sections 32 and 33 of the PIRA 2010 is a condition 
Sine qua non for the assumption of the jurisdiction by the 
local/provincial Labour Court and whenever unfair labour practice 
element is involved, the Labour Court of a particular Province, 
where a dispute arises, would have exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, 
in his view, the impugned judgment of the Lahore High Court 
Civil Petition No.407/2013 
5 
does not suffer from any jurisdictional effect nor it is a result of 
misreading or misinterpreting the relevant provisions of law, both 
Provincial and Federal, on the subject.  
8. 
  
We have fairly attended to the legal propositions and 
have carefully read all the provisions of above law.  
9. 
  
There is no denial of fact that through Eighteenth 
Constitutional Amendment, the Concurrent Legislative List was 
done away with and some Federal Ministries including Labour 
Ministry were devolved upon the Provinces. However, the Federal 
Government confronted with the anomaly that there are certain 
companies or groups of companies having trans-provincial 
industrial activities, where many people have been employed as 
workers or workmen, thus, if any industrial dispute including 
unfair labour practice arises, a single forum was needed to be 
provided for the settlement of such disputes so that class of 
companies having trans-provincial industrial units and their 
employers are not dragged into endless litigation on the question 
of jurisdiction as to whether the grievance petition in that case 
be taken cognizance by the Labour Court of the Province or by 
one single forum like NIRC, which has been established and 
constituted under the provision of section 53 of the Act X [ the 
IRA 2012]. The phrase, “trans-provincial” has been defined in 
clause (xxxiv) of section 2 of the Act X of 2012, which means, 
“any establishment, group of establishments, industry having its 
branches in more than one Provinces.”    
10.   
Under the provision of section 53, the NIRC has been 
constituted by the Federal Government but its functions and 
jurisdiction has been explained and elaborated in the provision of 
section 54 of the IRA, 2012. According to clause (e), the NIRC 
has the powers and jurisdiction to deal with the cases of unfair 
labour practices specified in sections 31 and 32 of the Act on the 
part of employers, workers, trade unions, either of them or 
Civil Petition No.407/2013 
6 
persons acting on behalf of any of them, whether committed 
individually or collectively, in the manner laid down under section 
33 or sub-section (9) of  section 33 or in such other way as may 
be prescribed, and to take, in such manner as may be prescribed 
by regulations under section 66, measures calculated to prevent 
an employer or workman from committing an unfair labour 
practice. In addition to above powers and jurisdiction, the NIRC 
has been conferred upon additional powers under the provision of 
section 57 of the Act (ibid), which includes the powers to punish 
for contempt of court and may award simple imprisonment which 
may extend to six months or with fine, which may extend to 
Rs.50000/- or with both. 
11.   
In the same provision, vide clause (2)(b), the 
Commission has been empowered to withdraw from a Labour 
Court of a Province any applications, proceedings or appeals 
relating to unfair labour practice, which fall within its jurisdiction; 
and (c) grant such relief as it may deem fit including interim 
injunction.  
A proviso has been added to the above provision, to 
following effect:- 
“Provided that no Court, including Labour Court shall take 
any action or entertain any application or proceedings in 
respect of a case of unfair labour practice, which is being 
dealt with by the Commission.  
12.   
After combined reading of the scheme of new labour 
laws, both Provincial and Federal, it may be concluded without 
any fear of rebuttal that two parallel forums have been created, 
one on a provincial basis whereas latter is federal level forum, 
called NIRC. Both these forums are having jurisdiction to deal 
with industrial disputes and unfair labour practice and other allied 
matters 
either 
attributable 
to 
the 
employer 
or 
the 
workers/workmen, however, the Federal Law has drawn a clear 
Civil Petition No.407/2013 
7 
demarcation line of jurisdiction of these two different forums, i.e. 
Labour Courts in the Provinces and the other NIRC at the Federal 
Level. It is not the nature of dispute, particularly, unfair labour 
practice, which confers jurisdiction on one or the other forum but 
it is the status of the employer or the group of employers, which 
would determine the jurisdiction of the Provincial Labour Court 
and that of the NIRC. To be more clear on the point we have no 
hesitation to hold that once it is established though any means 
that the employer or group of employers has an establishment, 
group of establishments, industry, having its branches in more 
than one Provinces, then the jurisdiction of the NIRC would be 
exclusive in nature and of overriding and super imposing effects 
over the Provincial Labour Court for resolving industrial dispute 
including unfair labour practice, etc. related to the employer, 
having its establishment or branches or industrial units in more 
than one Province and re-course has to be made by the 
aggrieved party to the NIRC and not to the Provincial Labour 
Court.  
13.   
Even otherwise under the provision of Article 143 of 
the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, laws enacted by the 
Parliament have been given overriding and super imposing 
effects over the laws enacted by a Provincial Assembly of any of 
the Provinces and in case of any clash or repugnancy between 
the two, the laws enacted by the Parliament shall prevail. Thus, 
on the touchstone of the provision of Article 143 of the 
Constitution, the Act of Parliament has been placed on the high 
pedestal and any Provincial Law enacted by the Provincial 
Assembly shall give way to the Federal Law, enacted by the 
Parliament, if the former is inconsistent or repugnant to the 
latter. Therefore, it is held that the provision of Act X of 2012 
(the IRA 2012) has overriding effect on all Provincial Labour 
Laws. Judged from this angle, we are of the firm view that in the 
present case, the learned Judge in Chamber of the Lahore High 
Civil Petition No.407/2013 
8 
Court, Lahore while drawing the impugned judgment dated 
26.11.2012 could not properly comprehend the intents and 
objects of the above provisions of law, rather misconstrued and 
misinterpreted the same, resulting into miscarriage of justice, the 
impugned judgment being not sustainable in the eye of law is 
liable to be set at naught.  
14.   
During hearing of this appeal, a question arose, as to 
whether the Parliament could enact any law relating to industrial 
relations/disputes, regulating the conduct of employers and 
workers or workmen and to establish an exclusive forum for such 
disputes at Federal Level without the express consent or 
requisition of the four Provincial Governments. After Eighteenth 
Amendment, doing away with the Concurrent Legislative List, by 
abolishing the same and when the Ministry of Labour and its all 
affairs have devolved upon the Provinces, whether such express 
consent of the Provincial Governments at any level or at the 
forum of CCI was not essential to give validity to the Federal Law 
on the subject, however, before us neither in the petition nor 
during the course of arguments addressed at the bar, the vires of 
the Federal Law, referred to above, was brought under challenge, 
therefore, we would leave it open to determine this question of 
law in some other appropriate case, where the vires of the 
Federal Laws are expressly challenged.  
15.   
Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The impugned 
judgment dated 26.11.2012 passed by the learned Judge in 
Chamber of the Lahore High Court, Lahore is set aside and the 
order of NIRC dated 24.01.2012 withdrawing the contempt 
petition from Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad to itself is hereby 
upheld and further proceedings in the matter be taken up by the 
NIRC and shall be decided positively within two months.  
Civil Petition No.407/2013 
9 
16.   
In view of the above judgment, allowing the appeal, 
Civil Miscellaneous Applications No.2265/2013 and 35 of 2014 
are also disposed of accordingly.  
Judge 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
Announced in open Court on 17.02.2014 at Islamabad 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
 
