Find a Lawyer

Application No. KAR‑89 of 1981, decided on 16th January, 1981.

‑‑ S. 38 (3‑a)‑Revision‑Suo motu powers of Tribunal‑Powers not exercised on application of a party.

Janat Textile Mills v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal P L D 1979 Kar. 725 ref.

Applicant in person.

This purports to be information under subsection (3‑a) of section 38, 1. R. O., inviting this Tribunal to exericise its suo motu powers of revision in respect of the order made by the learned First Labour Court on 17th Nov ember, 1980, discharging one P.S. Pestanjee, Manager, Central Insurance Co. Ltd., against whom a complaint had been made by the present informant, Mohammad Anwar Javed, that the said Pestanjee had made a false state ment in Application No. 1 of 1980, seeking permission under section 47, I. R. O. for terminating the services of Mohammad Anwar Javed. The present information, which, in fact, is in the form of revision application is misconceived as under subsection (3‑a) of section 38, I. R. O., this Tribunal is empowered to exercise only suo motu powers of revision and not on an application. It has been held by a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in the case of Janat Textile Mills v. S. L. A. T: (P L D 1979 Kar. 725) that exercise of suo motu revisional power of this Tribunal is not permissible by an application by a party.

2. It may further be mentioned that the prosecution of Pestanjee under section 56, I. R. O., was on the basis of a statement made by him in the proceedings on the application under section 47, I. R. O., for obtaining permission for terminating the, service of Mohammad Anwar Javed. The false statement by Pestanjee is said to be constituted by his denial that he had held an earlier enquiry against Mohammad Anwar Javed. This denial was, made when Pestanjee was shown a letter, dated 19th September, 1978, whereupon he stated that he had held no enquiry in pursuance of that letter. However, in the proceedings on the complaint under section 56, I. R. O., the present informant, Mohammad Anwar Javed, had filed before the learned Labour Court a letter, dated 19th September, 1978, whereby the General Manager of the Central Insurance Co. Ltd., had ordered an enquiry to be held against the present infor mant, Mohammad Anwar Javed, and P. S. Pestanjee was appointed as Enquiry Officer. This letter, admittedly, was not shown to Pestanjee when he was cross‑examined in the proceedings on the application under section 47, I. R. O. The learned Labour Court was thus, right in its assumption that Pestanjee appears to have held the enquiry based upon the letter, dated 19th September, 1978, yet he does not appear to have made a deliberate false statement as he may not have re‑collected the hold ing of the earlier enquiry. It further has expressed the view that if the let ter, dated 19th September, 1978 issued by the General Manager, appoint ing Pestanjee as Enquiry Officer against Mohammad Anwar Javed had been shown to him he would in all probability have recollected the holding of the earlier enquiry. The view taken by the learned Labour Court does not appear to be incorrect. In any case, it does not call for any inter ference by this Tribunal in the exercise of its suo motu powers of revi sion. No action, therefore, is called for by this Tribunal in regard to the impugned order of the learned Labour Court in the exercise of its revisional powers. The application is accordingly dismissed.

Application 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.