Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. ID‑460 of 1984, decided on 16th August, 1984.

‑‑‑ Ss. 37 & 38(3‑a)‑Appeal‑Revision ‑ Order of Labour Court passed either under S. 25‑A or S. 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑Open to appeal or revision ‑ Order of Labour Court dismissing petition under S. 12(2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑Not open to appeal or revision.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A, 36, 41 & 43‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2)‑Powers of Labour Court‑Competent to exercise powers of civil Court only for adjudication of industrial dispute‑Petition under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 not an industrial dispute as required by S. 41 or S. 43 of Ordinance ibid‑Ex parte order of Labour Court under S. 25‑A sought to be reviewed by Labour Court by application under S. 12(2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑Labour Court, in circumstances, held, had no power of civil Court under S. 12(2) of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and S. 12(2) ibid, further held, applicable only when fraud committed on Court and not for review of ex parte order not said to have been obtained by fraud.

Syed Niaz Ali Shah for Appellant.

Date of hearing : 9th August, 1984.

The appeal captioned above has been preferred against the order, dated 20th June, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan.

2. The facts are that the respondent was involved in a murder case and was thus terminated from service. He was acquitted and he applied for reinstatement but to no purpose, so he made an application under section 25‑A which was accepted ex parte. The appellant let the period of limitation for preferring an appeal or making application for getting the ex parte decision set aside, run down and brought after about eight months an application for review under section 12(2) C. P. C. The said review has been dismissed on 20th June, 1984, hence this appeal.

3. The present appeal does not lie as the impugned order has not been passed either under section 25‑A or section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Revision also does not lie, because no proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 have been challenged. The petition dismissed by the learned lower Court was made under section 12(2), C. P. C. and not under any provision of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Powers of civil Court have been given to the Labour Courts only for the adjudication of industrial disputes and not otherwise. The petition made under section 25‑A by the respondent was not an industrial dispute raised as required by section 41 or section 43 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

4. Even otherwise the impugned order is unexceptional. Section 12(2), C. P. C. applies where any fraud has been committed upon the Court. An ex parte decision cannot be said to have been obtained by fraud, There is no evidence that by any fraudulent means the order of rein statement was obtained. So, no application under section 12(2) C. P. C. lay nor otherwise the Labour Courts have jurisdiction under the said section.

5. As a result the appeal is dismissed in liming.

A.E.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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