Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Revision No. SG‑297 of 1984, decided on 28th July, 1985.
‑‑‑S. 38(3‑a)‑‑Revision‑‑Power can be exercised only when no appeal lies‑‑Limitation for appeal expired‑‑Tribunal should not in exercise of revision power interfere with order gaining finality by lapse of limitation period.
Malik Muhammad Nawaz for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent. .
Date of hearing: 22nd July, 1985.
The decision, dated 19‑4‑1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Faisalabad has been challenged, whereby the demand of allowing pensionary benefits to the Amla Safai was accepted.
2. Since the impugned decision is an award passed under section 32(1‑A) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 the same was appealable but revision has been lodged. The reason is obvious that period of limitation for bringing appeal had expired. It has been argued that the power of this tribunal of suo motu revision are wide enough to see if an order passed by a Labour Court is improper or not even though the order was appealable and no appeal was preferred. Making reference to section 115, C.P.C. it has been argued that since the intention of the Legislature was that the High Court should have power of revision only in those cases where no appeal lies, a restriction has been imposed in the said section that the High Court can call for the record of a case where no appeal lies, but in section 38(3‑a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 there is no such restriction. Out worthy the argument of the learned counsel seems to be forceful but in reality the position is different. The appellate powers given to the Tribunal under sections 37 and 38 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 are very limited in comparison with the appellate powers given to the District Judge and to the High Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. For this reason the Legislature appears to have laid a restriction in section 115, C.P.C. that revision lies where decrees and orders are not appealable. Since many orders passed by the Labour Courts remained unchallenged, therefore, section 38(3‑a) was inserted. The intention, therefore, appears that revisional powers can be exercised only in case when no appeal lies. If the contrary view is taken, the law of limitation would be circumvented as where the period of limitation for bringing an appeal has expired as in the present case revision will be preferred. Even if it be held that a party who has failed to challenge an appealable decision or order can given information to this Tribunal under section 38(3‑a), the Tribunal should not interfere with the orders that have gained finality by lapse of the period of limitation. Not only the Amla Safai of Sargodha Municipality but in other Municipalities also pensionary rights have been allowed, so there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned order for which revisional powers may be exercised.
3. As a result the revision is filed
A.E.
Revision filed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer