Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. GT‑157 of 1984, decided on 30th October, 1984.

‑‑‑Ss.25‑A, 36, 37 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ Appeal‑‑Revision‑‑Against order passed by Labour Court‑‑Labour Court as no powers of review against order under S.25‑A‑‑Order of Labour Court refusing to review its order under S.25‑A‑‑Not an order under S.25‑A‑‑Not appeal-able‑-‑Joint appeal against two separate and distinct orders‑‑Appeal, in circumstances, held, could not be treated as a revision.

‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 37‑‑Appeal against order of Labour Court passed without jurisdiction‑‑Limitation‑‑Impugned order though a nullity, held, subject to limitation if appealed against‑‑Limitation to start from date impugned order sought to be implemented‑‑Impugned void order implemented in 1982‑‑Appeal before Appellate Tribunal filed in 1984, in circumstances, held, hopelessly time‑barred ‑‑[1976 P L C 22 dissented from].

1976 P L C 22 dissented from.

P L D 1970 Lah. 6 rel.

Yawar Ali for Appellants.

Umar Daraz for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 27th October, 1984.

The decisions, dated 11‑11‑1982 and 5‑3‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala have been challenged in this appeal.

2. On the charge of bogus reading the respondent was dismissed. The learned lower Court vide its decision, dated 11‑11‑1982 directed the re‑instatement of the respondent for the reason that no enquiry was held. A review petition was moved to the learned successor of the previous Presiding Officer on the ground that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction but the same was dismissed holding that the Court was not competent to review the order.

3. So far as the order, dated 5‑3‑1984 is concerned, no appeal lies as the order has not been passed by the learned lower Court under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The appeal cannot be treated as a revision firstly because it is a joint appeal against two separate and distinct orders and secondly the order, dated 5‑3‑1984 does not appear to be illegal or wrong. There is no provision of review in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and Labour Court can exercise only those powers under C.P.C. that are necessary for the adjudication of an industrial dispute. The procedure of raising an industrial dispute is given in sections 26 to 32(1) whereas the petitions of the respondent was under section 25‑A and was not an industrial dispute.

4. The appeal so far as it challenges the decision, dated 11‑11‑1982 is time‑barred and there is no application for condonation of delay giving cogent reasons. No doubt an order passed without jurisdiction is a nullity but yet the question of limitation does arise if such an order has been challenged in an appeal. In such cases limitation starts from the date, void order is sought to be used. It has not been shown when the decision, dated 11‑11‑1982 was sought to be implemented. The respondent says that it was implemented soon after the decision of the case by the learned lower Court.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited 1976 P L C 22 and PLD 1970 Lah. 6. In the former ruling P L D 1970 Lah. 6 has been followed but has been wrongly interpreted. It has not been found in the said ruling that in an appeal preferred against a void order, no question of limitation arises. It has been observed that limitation starts, when the void order is enforced. Soon after the passing of the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, it was enforced by asking the appellant to re‑instate him, so limitation started in 1982 and the present appeal brought in 1984 is hopelessly time‑barred.

6. As a result, the appeal so far as it challenges the decision, dated 11‑11‑1982 is dismissed as time‑barred and so far as it attacks the order, dated 5‑3‑1984, is dismissed as not maintainable.

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.