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.
Petition No.MN‑248 of 1985, decided on 30th October, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Practice and procedure‑‑Application for withdrawal of grievance petition with permission to bring a fresh petition‑‑Whether can be allowed by Labour Court‑‑Petition presented by counsel hence improper presentation‑‑Labour Court order allowing withdrawal of petition, with permission to bring fresh petition, in circumstances, upheld by appellate Tribunal in revision.
1985 P L C 413distinguished.
Irfan Wyne for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 27th October, 1985.
The order, dated 13‑7‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan has been challenged, whereby the respondent was allowed to withdraw his grievance petition with permission to bring a fresh one.
2. The prayer for permission to bring fresh petition was made on account of the recent ruling of the High Court reported in 1983 P L C 413 to the effect that presentation of the grievance petition by the lawyer was improper. This is true that C.P.C. is not applicable to the petitions brought under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and in the said Ordinance there is no provision to give permission to bring petition, but since there is no express prohibition in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in this respect, the impugned order is not, in the circumstances of the case, subject to serious objections. Permission to bring fresh petition is given when the existing petition is liable to be rejected for want of proper presentation and the remedy is to bring fresh petition to present the same properly. Rather by giving permission to bring fresh petition time is saved. If the Court has not rejected the petition for want of proper presentation, the worker, can ask for withdrawal to bring fresh petition. If such a prayer is not made, the petition would go on pending till it is rejected. Where there is no provision of a particular procedure, the Court has to initiate its own procedure to meet the ends of justice. For example there is no provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to dismiss a petition in default or to proceed ex parte against the adverse party. If any of the two eventualities arises; the Court has to pass some order either to dismiss the petition in default or to adjourn it. Now again there is no provision for restoration of a grievance petition which has been dismissed in default or to set aside ex parte proceedings or decision, but since the Court had dismissed the case in default or proceeded ex parts, so in the same manner the thing can be undone if good grounds are shown. In the same manner where the presentation of a grievance petition is found to be improper, the Court has to pass some order either to reject or to allow permission to bring fresh one although in section 25‑A there is no such provision of rejecting or permitting fresh petition. The learned counsel has stressed the point that the Court can only dismiss the petition in such a situation. But there is no provision in stricto senso to dismiss the petition. Section 25‑A(5) directs that the Labour Courts shall go into all the facts of the case and pass such orders as may be just and proper in the circumstances of the case. Now this is also a question of fact whether the presentation was by the lawyer or the worker himself. The Court has to pass just and proper order. The order of permitting fresh petition would not be unjust and improper since there is no express prohibition. Likewise if Court rejects the petition when there is no prayer for permission to bring fresh petition, such an order too in the circumstances of each case will be just and proper as there is no express prohibition not to pass such an order. Again although in section 25‑A(5) it is not expressly said that legal points are also to be gone into but we go into them because technical questions are involved in section 25‑A such as limitation etc. So in a way both kinds of orders‑‑to reject the petition or to give permission to bring fresh petition, are covered by section 25‑A(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
3. It has been argued that the High Court in 1985 P L C 413 did not give permission but dismissed the petition, so the Labour Courts can only dismiss the petition presented improperly. The answer is simple that as no such prayer was made before the High Court, so it had no occasion to consider the same to express its opinion. If in any case the High Court finds that the only proper thing in such circumstances is to dismiss the petition, it will be followed.
4. As a result, I do not find any force in the revision and dismiss the same.
A. E. Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer