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. FD‑71 of 1986, decided on 22nd January, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Labour cases‑‑Dispute between employer and employee affected by order‑‑Other workers if affected by impugned order were proper party and not necessary party hence not bound to apply for a being impleaded‑‑Petitioner if wanting to get a final order against such proper parties should implead them‑‑'A' promoted but promotion order reversed by employer‑‑Reversion order challenged and promotion restored by Labour Court‑‑Other workers challenging re‑promotion by way of grievance petition‑‑Objections by 'A' that (i) having accepted his grievance petition against reversion and restoring promotion Labour Court could not review its own order and (ii) other workers having not applied for being impleaded in previous proceedings before Labour Court order of Labour Court restoring promotion of 'A' was final against other workers as well‑‑Objections, in circumstances, repelled and any findings by Labour Court even different from its earlier findings given at back of other workers, held, would not amount to reviewing its previous order.
Nazir Ahmad Naz for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 19th January, 1986.
The order, dated 4‑1‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad is reported to be illegal.
2. The petitioner was promoted on 5‑11‑1981. The order was not challenged by respondents Nos. 2 to 18. Respondent No. 1 reverted the petitioner on 21‑2‑1983. The petitioner challenged the order in the Labour Court without impleading respondents Nos. 2 to 18. His grievance petition was accepted and his promotion was restored. Respondent No. 1 implemented the order. Respondents Nos. 2 to 18 have now challenged the posting of the petitioner on the post to which he had been promoted. The petitioner raised a question before the learned lower Court that it could not review its final order whereby the grievance petition of the petitioner had been accepted. The plea has been overruled and hence this revision.
3. The same argument inter alia has been advanced before me. I totally agree with the learned lower Court to its finding on the point. As respondents Nos. 2 to 18 were not party, the order was not final and if the learned lower Court happens to give finding different from the one made on the grievance petition of the petitioner, it would not amount to reviewing the previous order.
4. The other point argued is that the order of promotion of the petitioner dated 5‑11‑1981 had become final since it was not challenged by respondents Nos. 2 to 18, therefore, their grievance notice and petition are time‑barred. This is true that respondents Nos. 2 to 18 did not challenge the order, dated 5‑11‑1981 but since it was vacated by respondent No. 1, so it ceased to exist. Fresh cause of grievance accrued to the said respondents when the grievance petition of the petitioner was accepted on their back. This argument too is not forceful that respondents Nos. 2 to 18 did not come forward with a prayer to be impleaded as party to the grievance petition brought by the petitioner. Even if it be said that they had the knowledge of the promotion order passed in favour of the petitioner, dated 5‑11‑1981, they being not necessary parties were not required to apply for being impleaded as party. In labour cases the dispute is between the employer and the employees who have been adversely affected by an order passed by the employer. If other employees have been affected by the order, they are proper parties but not necessary parties. If the petitioner wanted to get a final order, he should have impleaded respondents Nos. 2 to 18 as party, but he cannot throw the responsibility upon them to have come forward with the prayer of becoming party. Moreover, the question of limitation was not raised before the learned lower Court as no finding on it can be found in the impugned order. The impugned order thus does not suffer from any legal infirmity to attract the exercise of suo motu revisional powers.
5. As a result, the revision is dismissed in limine.
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