Find a Lawyer

--‑‑-S. 38 (3‑A)‑Revision‑Suo motu‑Dismissal order contested before Labour Court on plea of having been passed by person not competent to do so‑Labour Court refusing prayer of management to summon Officer of Labour Directorate who could produce evidence to establish that person passing impugned dismissal order had been notified as Factory Manager and was thus competent to pass dismissal order‑Appellate Tribunal in suo motu revision while not interfering with order of Labour Court observing and leaving it to Labour Court to consider whether it would not be in the interest of justice and elimination of further litigation between parties to examine Factories Inspector for satisfying itself whether such person had been notified as Factory Manager‑Labour Court feeling unable to do so and its inability stemming from fact that it had no power to review its earlier order by which it had refused prayer of management to summon said officer‑By its subsequent order under suo motu revision Tribunal taking view that it would be proper to avoid multiplicity of proceedings to summon and examine concerned officer‑Contention that by giving such direc tion in its subsequent order‑Tribunal would be reviewing its previous order by which it had refused to give any such direction- Repelled‑Held : Since Labour Court was of the view that it was not competent to summon concerned officer it could not be said that Tribunal was reviewing its previous order and further that sub sequent order of Tribunal was being passed on fresh order of Labour Court and was not incons1stent with its previous order.

Mahmood Abdul Ghani for Applicant.

Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Respondent.

Record and proceedings in this case have been called for in the exer cise of suo motu powers of revision of this Tribunal under subsection (3‑A) of section 38, I.R.O. for examining the correctness, legality and propriety of the order passed by the second Labour Court on 12th April, 1981 expressing its inability to summon the Officer of the Directorate of Labour for clarifying the position whether Suleman Gaba had been notified as the Factory Manager or any intimation that he was so notified was sent to the Factory Manager. The said order was passed in view of the earlier order, passed in revision by this Tribunal, on 9th February, 1981 wherein it has been observed as follows :‑-

"It has next to be considered whether the two impugned orders suffer from any illegality or impropriety and just grounds ex1st for revising the same. As already pointed out the stand of the work man, Naseeb Zada, all along has been that Suleman Gaba was not competent to pass orders of his dismissal. The Usman Textile Mills, therefore, had due notice of this objection on the part of the workman. This objection was greatly strengthened by the admis sion of the mill's own witness, S.K. Ali Ahmed, that Suleman Gaba bad no hiring or firing powers. In view of this position, the orders of the learned Labour Court would appear to be at least technically sound. This, however, is not the end of the matter for, if in fact, Suleman Gaba is notified as the Manager under the Factories Act, as would appear from the notice, dated 9th July, 1979 addressed to the Ass1stant Director Labour and the letter, dated 17th December, 1980 from the Joint Director Labour to the Usman Textile Mills Ltd., regarding the Notification of Mr. Suleman Gaba as Factory Manager, it will not only result in multiplicity of proceedings and further litigation if evidence on the point whether Suleman Gaba was notified as Factory Manager is shut out. This Tribunal, in the case of Shoukat Ali v. President Allied Bank of Pakistan 1980 P L C 1058, while setting aside the orders of dismissal in respect of a workman on the grounds that the orders bad been passed by an authority not competent to dismiss the workman, had allowed the Bank the option to take appropriate proceedings against the workman from the stage that they were held to be invalid. In view of all these circumstances, while not inter fering with the two orders, respectively, dated 16th November, 1980 and 17th December, 1980 passed by the learned Labour Court, I would leave it to the learned Labour Court to consider whether it would not be in the interest of justice and elimination of further litigation between the parties to examine the Factory Inspector for satisfying itself whether 8uleman Gaba in fact was notified as Factory Manager on the date that the dismissal orders in respect of workman Naseeb Zada were passed."

2. According to the learned Labour Court, its inability to summon the Officer of the Labour Directorate stems from the fact that it has no power to review its order, dated 7th December, 1980 by which it had re fused the prayer of the management to summon the said Officer. With out examining the question whether the view taken by the learned Labour Court is correct specially in view of the clear indication given in the order of this Tribunal, dated 9th February, 1981 I am of the view that it would be proper and avoid multiplicity of the proceedings to summon and examine the concerned Officer of the Labour Directorate in regard to the limited question whether Suleman Gaba was notified as the Factory Manager, and the Department had received the letter, dated 9th July, 1979 on the subject and also whether the letter, dated 17th December, 1980 allegedly written by the Joint Director Labour to the respondents Usman Textile Mills Ltd. regarding the Notification of Suleman Gaba as Factory Manager had been issued by the Department.

3. Mr. Mirza Muhammad Kazim sought to argue that giving any such direction would amount to review by this Tribunal of its order, dated 9th February, 1981 by which it had refused to give any such direc tions. I have already reproduced the material portion of that order by which the view of this Tribunal was that it would be proper and appro priate to summon the witness but it was considered that this power should be exercised by the learned Labour Court. Since the learned Labour Court has taken the view that it is not competent to do so as it would tantamount to reviewing its order, it cannot be said that this Tribunal is reviewing its orders. The orders which now this Tribunal is passing are on the fresh orders passed by the learned Labour Court, dated 12th April, 1981 and are not incons1stent with the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal, dated 9th February, 1981.

4. Record and proceedings should be returned to the learned Labour Court with the direction to dispose of the matter at an early date.

A. E. Order accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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