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.
Petitions Nos. FD‑267 to 269 of 1985/Pb., decided on 7th October, 1985.
‑‑Ss. 25‑A a 36‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Grievance petition suffering from defect‑‑Labour Court can allow its withdrawal with permission to bring fresh petition.
Javed Altaf for Petitioner.
Ch. Muhammad Ikram Zahid for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 29th September, 1985.
Captioned above are three revisions informing that the orders, dated 30‑6‑1985, 17‑6‑1985 and 30‑6‑1985 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad allowing the respondents to withdraw their respective grievance petitions with permission to bring fresh ones, are without jurisdiction and of no legal effect. As identical legal question is involved in all the three revisions, therefore, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there being no provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for giving permission to bring fresh grievance petition and C.P.C. not being applicable and that there being no formal defect in the grievance petitions the impugned orders have no legal effect. The ground on which the grievance petitions were sought to be withdrawn with permission to bring fresh ones was that in view of the ruling of the High Court reported in 1985 P L C 413 the, presentation of the grievance petitions by the lawyer and not by the respondents themselves was illegal, This is true that C.P.C. is not applicable and there is no express provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for giving permission to bring fresh grievance petition, yet this argument is without force that the order permitting the bringing of fresh petition properly is illegal. Since no procedure is given in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and C.P.C. had not been made applicable, the Labour Courts have to adopt such a procedure that is reasonable and suits the nature of the case to be dealt with and decided by them. Of course, if some particular manner has been expressly prevented, that cannot be followed. There is nothing in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 that may have expressly prevented the Labour Courts to allow withdrawal of petitions with permission to bring fresh ones without those defects for which the previous grievance petitions were sought to be withdrawn. So there being no restriction for allowing the institution of the fresh petitions, the impugned orders do not stand hit by any provision of law. Now let us consider if no application for withdrawal with permission to bring fresh petition is made which orders the Courts have ultimately to pass. Since the presentation was not legal, the petitions were to be rejected on account of this defect. Where a case has not been properly presented, it can neither be accepted nor dismissed on merits. The only way is to reject the petition. So the defect on account of which the petition was rejected can be removed and fresh petition free from such a defect can be brought without loss of time. The only objection that can be raised would be of limitation. Needless to say that question of limitation arises irrespective of the fact if permission for bringing fresh petition is given or the Court rejects the petition on account of any formal defect or any other sufficient groud. Question of limitation arises if withdrawal with permission to bring fresh petition is made under Order XXIII, rule 1(2) as is clear from rule 2 of the same order. Labour Courts, therefore, are competent to accord permission to bring fresh petition if sufficient grounds are shown.
3. The other argument is that defective presentation is not a formal defect in the petition. Question of formal defect arises if it is held that C.P.C. applies. If any sufficient ground is shown for which the petition may fail without going into the merits, the Court has jurisdiction to allow the bringing of fresh petition to be enabled to resolve the real controversy between the employer and the employee. Where a petition is to be rejected for any formal defect, it is advisable for the petitioner to apply for its withdrawal with permission to bring fresh petition in order to save time. I, therefore, hold that the impugned orders do not suffer from any legal infirmity for which exercise of suo motu power of revision may be considered necessary.
4. As a result, the revisions are dismissed.
A.E. Revisions dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer