Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition No. MN‑344 of 1980/Pb., decided on 13th January, 1981.

‑‑ S. 36 read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XIV, rr. 2, 5 and S.151‑Adjudication of disputes‑Practice and procedure Framing of issues‑Respondent making application under r. 2, O. XIV of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for deciding preliminary objections before taking up case on merit‑Labour Court framing preliminary issues and adjourning case for evidence and arguments Petitioner on next date praying for framing additional issue on‑merits Request of petitioner granted and issue on merit also added for decision or case in its entirety‑Order of Labour Court challenged on plea that having framed issues it could not review its earlier order and could not add additional issues before deciding preliminary issues Subsequent order of Labour Court, held, did not amount to review but deemed to have been passed under r. 5, O. XIV of Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑Court empowered to frame preliminary issues, held, also empowered to amend same or add additional issues‑Order of Labour further, held, in conformity with true spirit of Labour Laws that cases should be disposed of. in entirety at earliest and not in piece meal.

Malik Mumtaz Akhtar for Petitioner.

Ch. Nazir Hussain for Respondent.

Allah Bakhsh Malik, respondent, filed a petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur in July, 1980. In their written statement the Management raised several preliminary objections and also opposed the petition on merits. On 25‑10‑1980 the Management filed an application under Order XIV, rule 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying that the preliminary objections, which go to the root of the case, be disposed of first before deciding the case on merits. The Labour Court on 26‑10‑1980 passed the following order framing the preliminary issues and adjourned the case to 15‑11‑1980 for evidence and arguments:‑

"Written statement filed. Some preliminary objections have been taken. It is desirable that these issues should be disposed of first and then the matter may be considered on merits. The following prelimi nary issues are framed:‑

(i) Whether the petitioner is a workman, if not, its effect. O. P. P.

(ii) Whether the Managing Director can be sued. O. P. P.

(iii) Whether the grievance notice was served on the respondent, if not its effect.

To coma up on 15‑11‑1980 for evidence and arguments."

On 15‑11‑1980 the counsel for the present respondent verbally stated that it bad been ruled out by the Labour Appellate Tribunal that labour cases should not be decided in piecemeal and consequently he requested that addi tional issue may be framed on merits and the entire evidence may be recorded. The counsel for the opposite‑party i. e., present petitioner opposed this prayer on the ground that preliminary objections already having been framed it would be advisable, if such issues are decided first. The Labour Court, however, vide impugned order dated 15‑11‑1980, accepted the conten tion of the counsel for Allah Bakhsh Malik, respondent, that the case should be decided in its entirety and added the following issue on merits,‑

(iv) Is the petitioner entitled to the relief claimed by him

Further the parties were directed to produce their evidence on 13‑12‑1980. The Management feeling aggrieved with this interlocutory order dated 15‑11‑1980 has filed the present revision petition under section 3P(3‑A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

2. I have heard at length the counsel for the parties and have also perused the relevant material available on the record.

3. The main contention of Mr. Mumtaz Akhtar Malik, learned counsel for the petitioner Management, is that the impugned order dated 15‑11‑1980 amounts to review earlier order dated 26‑10‑1980, but the Labour Court had no such power of review. As mentioned earlier the Management had filed an application under Order XIV, rule 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 25‑10‑1980, on which the order dated 26‑10‑1980, referred to above, was passed and three preliminary issues were framed. It is an admitted fact that the subsequent request made by the counsel for the present respondent on 15‑11‑1980 for striking out an additional issue on merits was under rule 5 of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is in this background that we have to see the nature of the power exercised by the Labour Court while passing .the impugned order dated 15‑11‑1980. Admittedly the earlier application dated 25‑10‑1980 for striking out the legal issues and asking for decision on them first before touching the merits was under Order XIV, rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and on verbal request of the counsel for the present respondent, the Labour Court added fourth issue under rule 5 of Order XIV of the Code. Thus, the earlier order dated 26‑10‑1980 and the impugned order dated 15-11‑1980 were passed under the same order but under two different rules‑one under rule and the other under rule 5 of Order XIV. Either the Labour Court should not have exercised the earlier jurisdiction under rule 2 and if that was done then the Court was fully competent to add another issue under rule 5 of the Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure. In this factual background the question of review, therefore, would not arise, because the Court which has the power to frame preliminary issues has also the power to amend them or add additional issues. Accordingly, there is no force in this conten tion and the same is hereby repelled. Moreover, the impugned order of the Labour Court is in accordance with the true spirit of the Labour Laws that the labour cases should be disposed of in entirety at the earliest and not in piecemeals. Accordingly, 'I find no force in this revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.