Find a Lawyer

Appeals Nos . FD‑435, 487, 479 and 437 of 1985/Pb. , decided on 7th October, 1985.

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 36‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Labour Courts have to introduce and adopt their own procedure that may be reasonable and suitable to nature of‑ case‑‑Grievance petition presented by Advocate‑ Petitioner realising defect in presentation applying by oral statement before Labour Court to withdraw petition with permission to bring fresh petition‑‑Labour Court in circumstances, held, within its jurisdiction to allow prayer.

Appeal No. FD‑435 of 1985/Pb.

Aurangzeb for Appellant.

Respondents in person.

Appeal No. FD‑487 of 1985/Pb.

Saleem Baig for Appellant.

Munawar Ahmad Javed for Respondent.

Appeal No. 479 of 1985/Pb.

S.M. Arif for Appellant.

Respondent in person.

Appeal No. FD‑437 of 1985/Pb.

H.R. Haider for Appellant.

Munawar Ahmad Javed for Respondent.

Dates of hearing: 16th and 29th of September, 1985.

The four appeals captioned above arise from the decisions, dated 27‑6‑1985, 10‑7‑1985, 25‑6‑1985 and 24‑6‑1985, respectively, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the respondents of four appeals were allowed to withdraw their grievance petitions with permission to bring fresh ones. The ground was that in view of the ruling reported in 1985 P L C 413 the grievance petitions were not maintainable having been presented by the lawyers and not by the respondents themselves.

2. As common legal question is involved in all the four appeals although they have been argued separately, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

3. It has been argued that C.P.C. is not applicable and there being no provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to give permission to bring fresh petitions, the impugned decisions are without jurisdiction. It has also been argued that presentation of the petitions by the counsel is not a formal defect in the petitions. This is true that all the provisions of C.P.C. are not applicable but since in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 also no elaborate procedure is given the Labour Courts have to introduce and adopt their own procedure, that may be reasonable and suitable to the nature of the cases to be decided by them. Where a petition has to ultimately fail on account o: a defect which can be removed, the Court may not continue to heap such a petition and to reject it after some months. If the petitioner realises the defect and applies to withdraw the petition with permission to bring fresh petition, the Labour Courts are within their jurisdiction to allow the prayer. Improper presentation is not a defect that may affect the merits. Rather the Court is not in a position to adjudicate upon the merits of the case. So in order to resolve the real controversy between the parties so far as merits are concerned, such a defect can be allowed to be removed. The only question that may arise would be of limitation. Even if the respondents had not prayed for the withdrawal of the petitions with permission to bring fresh ones, the petitions would have been ultimately rejected on account of the defect in presentation and not dismissed on merits. When a petition has been rejected, the party has a right to bring fresh petition free from the defect for which the previous petition was rejected as the case was not decided on merits. The only objection that can be raised is of limitation but that too can be raised when fresh petition is brought. The Court has to consider the grounds of condonation if any is given and has to decide if there were good grounds for condoling the delay. So in my opinion, it is quite in the fitness of things to allow permission to bring fresh petition where the presentation of the former petition is defective.

4. It has been argued that no application, was given. Since oral request was made and the learned lower Court recorded the statement) of the respondents, it was not necessary to bring a separate petition. It has also been argued that before giving permission no notice was given to the appellants and they were not heard. The argument has no much force. The statements of the respondents were recorded in the presence of the appellant's counsel. So if he had any objection the same could have been raised. This argument too is devoid of force that since the learned counsel was not aware which order would be passed, so unless notices had been given or arguments had been expressly invited. He was not in a position to raise objection. In the presence of the respondents and their counsel prayer for withdrawal of the grievance petitions with permission to bring fresh petitions was made and in their presence statements of the respondents were recorded and orders passed. The learned counsel could inform the Court that they had objection to the according to permission to bring fresh petitions and if they had done so, they would have been heard. It appears that the learned counsel had no objection to make and, therefore, remained mum. Apart from it even if it be said that the appellants were not heard, since full opportunity has been afforded in petition the appellants are no longer prejudiced.

5. No doubt, in the case of Gojra Samundri Sugar Mills application was given by the respondent but in that too statement of the respondent was recorded in the presence of the learned counsel for the appellant and order was passed at that very time, so if there had been any objection, the same could have been raised.

6. As a result, the appeals having no force are dismissed.

A.E.

‑‑‑‑‑ Appeals 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.