Find a Lawyer

Petition No. Rl.310 of 1981/Pb., decided on 21st February, 1983.

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

--‑‑ S. 38 (3‑a)‑Revision‑Matter before Labour Court relating to recovery of back benefits pursuant to re‑instatement‑Claim resisted on ground that same not covered by award of Labour Court being related to some earlier‑re‑instatement made otherwise‑Labour Court pa3sing order without inviting evidence for clarification of contro versy‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, set aside by Appellate Tribunal in exercise of revision powers and case remanded for re‑decision after affording opportunity of evidence to parties.

Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioner

Ehsan‑ul‑Haq Chaudhry for Respondent

Date of hearing : 14th February, 1983.

The two revisions captioned above emanate from the orders dated 26th August, 1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi, whereby the complaints brought by the peti tioners under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue were dismissed.

2. The learned lower Court relied upon a photostat copy of a compromise deed purported to have been executed by the parties. The case of the petitioners is that the compromise pertained to the back benefits of the previous order of reinstatement, whereas the petitions given under section 51 pertained to the second dismissal and reinstatement. The claim statement shows that the dues claimed by the petitioners relate to the years 1978‑79 and 1979‑80. The present dismissal and reinstatement were ordered prior to that. In the photostat copy of the compromise deed numbers of certain cases are mentioned but since the list of cases, date of decisions and name of the Courts are not given, it does not appear if the compromise relates to both the order of reinstatement. The learned lower Court should have invited evidence for the clarification of the matter. The copies of the order passed in the cases were also produced before the learned lower Court to tally the numbers given in the compromise deed.

3. So far as Arshad Ali Khan and M. M. Ashraf are concerned, they were not party to the contempt petition, which was on account of the compromise withdrawn, so it was also to be considered by the learned lower Court whether the withdrawal of the said contempt petition had any adverse effect upon their petition brought under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The cases, therefore, need proper hearing.

4. I, accordingly accept the revision petitions and setting aside the impugned orders of the learned lower Court, remand the cases with the direction that after affording proper opportunity to the parties, they be re-decided.

A.E. Appeal 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.