Find a Lawyer

(a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑,

‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑Grievance petition to Labour Court ‑ Whether to be presented in person ‑ Words "may take the matter to Labour Court"‑Mean to take the matter himself to the Court ‑ Petition must be presented by workman and counsel ‑‑ Cannot be sent by post.

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3‑a) ‑‑ Grievance petition consigned to record without fixing any date for reason that same received by post and not presented in person‑Does not amount to disposal of petition one way or other‑Labour Court, held, could take action on such petition when petitioner subsequently appeared in person with request of restoration ‑: Such action, held, would not amount to review of order of Labour Court ‑ Petition however, in circum stances, held, would be hit by limitation and petitioner must make application for condonation of delay to be granted by Labour Court at its judicious discretion.

Ajmal Kamal Miraa for Petitioner.

Respondent in person.

Date of hearing : 23rd February, 1983.

This revision emanates from the order dated 11‑3‑1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby he reviewed his order dated 10‑4‑1980, by which the grievance petition of the respondent sent by post was consigned without any action. By the impugned order the learned trial Judge restored the grievance petition. It has been held in the impugned order that presentation by post was proper and legal.

2. . It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the grievance petition challenging the dismissal order had been drafted by a leading lawyer, the respondent knew that it could be presented personally only and pct by post. Learned counsel also says that since no opportunity to produce evidence was given, the petitioner could not show that the respondent had been informed that the grievance petition was to be presented personally.

3. The learned lower Court has wrongly held that section 25‑A of to Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, does not say that the grievance petition is to be presented in person. There is no direct or clear cut direction in this respect, but the phraseology used clearly, provides in unequivocal terms that the petitions are to be presented in person. The words are "may take the. matter to the Labour Court" and not "may send the matter to the Labour Court". The words "take the matter" are very significant. The words mean "to take the matter himself to the Court". When provision of giving notice is made, the words "may bring to the notice of" have been used. So the notice can be sent by post also, but the petition will be personally presented, by the workman and counsel. Para. (4) of section 25‑A provides that adjudication is to b made by the Labour Court within seven days from the date of the matte being brought before it. If presentation by post is taken as proper present ation, it will be impossible to decide the matter within seven days because three or four days are spent in summoning the petitioner first. So the intention of section 25‑A is not that the grievance petitions can. be sent b post.

4. The Labour Courts have no power of review, there being no such provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. But in the present case no question of reviewing any order arises as no order on merits or dismissing the petition in default . was passed. As no date was fixed no question of dismissing the petition in default could arise, without taking any action the petition was consigned. If no date is, put, the petition is consigned or adjourn d sine die. A consigned petition does not stand disposed of one way or the other and thus can at any time be taken up and disposed of one way or the other. The learned lower Court, therefore, could stake action on the said petition when the respondent appeared in person and requested for its restoration. The order of restoration in reality was an. Order proceed with the petition. However, the question of limitation does arise because the period had expired when the. respondent appeared and in 8 his presence the petition was brought from the record room and placed before the learned Presiding Officer. The respondent, therefore, should have made an application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act read with section 65‑B of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969, giving reasons for the condonation of delay. Such an application normally is given alongwith the main grievance petition but since in the present case the question of limitation arose at the time the petition was considered to have been legally presented, so such an appli cation can be made even now. However, the question of condonation of delay will be decided according to the grounds taken up and it is always the discretion of the Court which is exercised judiciously in the circum stances of each case. So the learned lower Court is right in proceeding with the case. But the respondent shall have to apply for condonation and satisfy the learned lower Court for the delay. The revision is ‑disposed of accordingly.

Revision disposed of.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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