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.
Revision No. JM‑338 to 341 of 1985, decided on 23rd November, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25, 38(3‑a) to 47‑‑Revision‑‑Permission for dismissal of office bearer of trade union during pendency of industrial dispute‑‑Order of Labour Court under S. 47 would not be a final order‑‑Labour Court if convinced could take a different view while disposing of grievance petition against dismissal order‑‑Dismissal order pursuant to impugned permission order having already been passed .Appellate Tribunal declining to exercise suo motu revisional powers‑‑Held, If revision was accepted or rejected expressing some opinion, either party will be prejudiced in disposal of grievance petition which is necessary to be brought to get direction of re‑instatement.
Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich for Petitioners.
Shakil Ahmad Qazi Assistant Legal Adviser for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 18th November 1985.
The above captioned four revisions arise from the common order of the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi dated 15‑9‑1985 reporting that the impugned orders are wrong and are of no legal effect. As the facts and legal points involved in all the four revisions are common, all of them are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. Permission to dismiss the petitioners was accorded by the impugned orders under section 47(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. After the decision of the petitions and before revision were preferred to this tribunal, the petitioners had been dismissed from service.
3. The points argued are that the charge‑sheet was given and inquiry officer was appointed by the Works Manager, whereas only the Factory Manager was competent in this behal" lumber of rulings have been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners such as 1984 PLC 1963; 1983 P L C 733; P L D 1979 Kar. 35; 1984 P L C 471 and 1930 P L C 1152. On the point that the inquiry officer could be appointed not by the Works Manager but by the Factory Manager the rulings cited are P L D 1964 Lah. 743; 1979 P L C 161; 1977 P L C 567; 1970 P L C 349; 1984 P L C 521; 1983 P L C 583; 1983 P L C 526 and 1985 P L G 838. Learned counsel for the respondent has filed written arguments and has read out the same. He too has cited number of rulings which are mentioned in his written arguments. An order passed under section 47 giving permission to dismiss a worker is never final. Where a prima facie case is made out, the employer is entitled to get permission Final adjudication is made if pursuant to the permission given under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 a dismissal order has been passed and it has been challenged in a petition under section 25‑A by the worker concerned. If the revisions are neither accepted or rejected expressing some opinion. Either party will be prejudiced in the disposal of the grievance petitions which are necessary to be brought to get direction of re‑instatement. If the revisions are accepted, the respondent will be prejudiced by the observations made by this tribunal and on the contrary if the revisions are dismissed on merits, the petitioners will be prejudiced. Learned counsel for the petitioners has said that the petitioners would not bring petitions under section 25‑A whatever the decision of the revisions may be. This is not the position. Even iff the revisions are accepted, a direction is to be obtained for re‑instatement as without such a direction the respondent may not re‑instate the petitioners. Unless there is a direction, there will be no competent of Court by not putting the petitioners back to duty If dismissal orders had not been passed, of course, there could have been occasion to dispose of the revisions on merits. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the learned lower Court has already formed an opinion, it is not expected that if grievance petitions are brought, a contrary view will be taken to the one already expressed while disposing of the petitions of the respondent brought under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. 1 hve already said that an order according permission under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is never final and if the Court is convinced, a contrary view can be taken while disposing of the grievance petitions for re‑instatement.
4. In the circumstances mentioned above I decline to exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under section 38 (3-a) of the industrial Relations Ordinance, 1968. The revisions are filed.
A. E.
Revisions filed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer