Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Application No. KAR‑656 of 1980, decided on 2nd November, 1980.
‑‑ Ss. 15 & 53 read with Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 369 & 561-A‑Labour Court‑Not competent to review its own Order passed on complaint.
The Labour Court had directed issuance of summonses to accused on a complaint under sections 15 and 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but on same day review its order and instead directed that a preliminary enquiry be held in the matter. The record was sent for by the Labour Appellate Tribunal in exercise of suo motu powers of revision under section 38(3‑a) of the Ordinance and held : "unlike the Civil Procedure Code, the Criminal Procedure Code contains no provision empowering a criminal Court to review its orders. So far as orders, which fall within the definition of judgments as contemplated by section 369, Cr. P. C. are concerned, there is a complete bar to altering or modifying the same after they have been signed. Even other orders which are: not judgments for the purposes of section 369, Cr. P. C. cannot ordinarily be reviewed even under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C., which section deals with the inherent powers of the High Court. If the High Court is not competent to ordinarily review its orders even in the exercise of its inherent powers under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C., much less a subordinate Court is competent to review its orders. The subsequent order of the Labour Court, reviewing its earlier order, is without jurisdiction and not warranted by law.
Syed Qamaruddin Hassan for Respondent.
Nemo for the Complainant.
Date of bearing : 2nd November, 1980.
The record and proceedings in Criminal Complaint No. 24 of 1979, under section 25‑A (8), I. R. O., pending before the learned fifth Labour Court, have been ' sent for, in the exercise of the suo motu powers of revision vesting in this Tribunal under section (3‑a) of section 38, I. R. O., in order to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of the order, dated 8‑5‑1979, by which .the learned Labour Court purported to review its earlier order, passed on the same day; directing issuance of .summonses to accused Nos. 2 and 3 in the complaint filed by complainant Shebar Khan, and instead directed that a P. E. be held in the matter.
2. Notice was issued to both the parties but while Mr. Syed Qamaruddin Hassan, on behalf of the respondent accused has put in appearance, Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, who represents the complainant, is absent as also the complainant himself.
3. Unlike the Civil Procedure Code the Criminal Procedure Code contains no provision empowering a criminal Court to review its orders. So far as orders, which fall within the definition of judgments as contemplated by section 369, Cr. P. C. are concerned, there is a complete bar to altering or modifying the same after they have been signed. Even other orders which are not judgments for the purposes of section 369; Cr. P. C. cannot ordinarily be reviewed even under section 361‑A, Cr. P. C., which section, deals with the inherent powers of the High Court. In Soomar v. State (P L D 1975 Kar. 80); it was observed by Tufail Ali A. Rehman, C. J., that orders and decisions, not falling within the definition of judgments as contemplated under section 369, Cr. P.C., can be reviewed by the High Court in rare and exceptional cases of the nature indicated in the judgment of the Supreme Court, reported in P L D 1973 S C 335,' or closely analogous thereto, and the mere fact that the earlier decision is gasse3 without jurisdiction or in violation of the mandatory provisions of law or principles of natural justice would not confer jurisdiction on the Court to review such orders even under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C.
4. If the High Court is not competent to ordinarily review its order, even in the exercise of its inherent powers under section 561‑A, Cr. P. C., much less a subordinate Court is competent to review its orders. I am, therefore, of opinion that the subsequent order of the learned Labour Court, reviewing its earlier order, is without jurisdiction and not warranted by law. I would, Therefore, set aside the subsequent order directing the holding of the P. E. and hold that the earlier order issuing, summonses to respondent accused Nos. 2 and 3 holds the field. The learned Labour Court should, accordingly, issue summonses to the said accused and proceed with the trial of the case against them.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer