Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. FD-403 of 1985, decided on 30th October, 1985.

---Ss. 25-A & 38(3)--Procedure---Labour Court in absence of express provision of law has to initiate its own procedure best suited to nature of the case--Grievance petition presented by counsel--Improper presentation--Labour Court allowing such petition to be withdrawn with permission to bring fresh one--Procedure adopted by Labour Court, in circumstances, held, neither against principles of natural justice nor against public policy nor prejudicial to any party.

1985 P L C 413 distinguished.

Saleem Baig for Appellant.

Date of hearing: 27th October, 1985.

The appeal captioned above arises from the order, dated 23-6-1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad, whereby the grievance petition was allowed to be withdrawn with permission to bring a fresh one.

2. The ground for which request for withdraw with permission to bring fresh petition was made is that the grievance petition had been presented by the ' lawyer, whereas in the recent ruling of the High Court reported in 1985 P L C 413 it has been held that such a presentation is improper.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that C. P.C. is not applicable to labour cases and there being no provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 for giving permission to bring fresh grievance petition, the impugned order is not sustainable. There is no doubt that C.P.C. is not applicable to the petitions brought under section 25-A but where there is no express provision in law, the Court has to initiate its own procedure best to the nature of the case. Section 36(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 provides for unqualified withdraw of the grievance petition wherein dispute has been settled between the parties or there are other sufficient grounds for withdraw but there is no provision for giving permission to bring fresh petition, so the Labour Courts have to initiate some procedure to meet such eventualities. The procedure adopted by the labour Court of giving permission to bring fresh grievance petition is neither against the principles of natural justice, nor against public policy nor is prejudicial to any party. The other alternative was to reject the grievance petition. If the said alternative had been adopted, the respondent would have presented new grievance petition himself as the previous one had not been decided on merits. Needless to say that whereby the real dispute existing between the parties has not been decided although the Court is competent to decide and right to sue still survives to the party, it can bring the casa again after removing the defect for which the case was previously rejected. If period of limitation has expired, he has to satisfy that there are good grounds for the condonation of delay. The mere fact that the petition has been rejected is not sufficient to prevent the Court from deciding the dispute on merits. However, where right to sue does not survive, no fresh case can be brought. For example if the grievance petition has been dismissed on the ground that the grievance notice was time-barred, right to sue would not survive as the fresh petition would be time barred or based upon a grievance notice already declared by the Court as time-barred. Likewise when it has been found that the employee is not covered by the definition of workman or the establishment is not subject to the application of Labour laws and the petition has been dismissed on this ground, no fresh petition would lie. But in the case like the present one right to sue survives and fresh petition can be brought in both eventualities whether permission is given to bring fresh petition or the petition has been rejected for improper presentation. Of course, question of limitation would arise in both eventualities and unless the worker satisfies the Court that there are cogent grounds for condonation of delay, he cannot ultimately succeed, but the question of limitation is to be decided after the fresh petition has been entertained. It has been argued that since the High Court in 1985 P L C 413 dismissed the grievance petition, the Labour Courts should dismiss the petitions which have not been properly presented. The answer is simple that since no prayer was made before the High Court for withdrawal with permission to bring fresh petition, so the question was not examined by the High Court. Of course if now in any case the High Court decides that such a petition is to be dismissed and there is no other alternative, the argument would hold good that no permission to bring fresh petition can be given. In reality there is no difference in giving permission or in rejecting the previous petition. Rather by giving permission time is saved. If such a prayer is not made, fresh petition will not be brought till the pending one is rejected or dismissed.

4. As a result, the appeal having no force is dismissed.

A. E. Appeal 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.