1976 PLP 665 (PLC)

This is an appeal against the interlocutory Order dated 12-6-1975 dismissing the application of the appellants, filed for allowing them to further cress-examine the respondent/applicant. The facts of the case show that the respondent worker had filed an application under section 25-A of

1. R. O. in the Junior Labour Court for his re-instatement and back benefits. On 6-6 1975, the learned Advocate of the appellant had completed the cross-examination of the respondent/ applicant and thereafter the case was adjourned for examining the witnesses of the applicant to I 1-6-1975, when the learned Advocate of the appellant/ 'f` respondent filed application for recalling the respondent/applicant for the purpose of further cross-examining him which application was however, dismissed by the learned Junior Labour Court, and against this Order the Management have filed the appeal in this Court. I have heard the arguments of the Advocate of the appellant and also the representative of the respondent. The record of the Junior Labour Court shows that the learned Junior Labour Court had afforded full opportunity to the Advocate for the appellant/respondent, to cross-examine the respondent/applicant on two consecutive hearings when on the second day, when the case was fixed, the learned Advocate had fully cross-examined the respondent/applicant and closed it. It may be noted that according to section 25-A, the Junior Labour Court has to decide the application within 7 days and hardly one day is usually given fen cross-examination but the learned Presiding Officer had; out of way allotted 2 days to the Advocate for cross-examining the respondent/ applicant. The learned Presiding Officer was therefore, justified in refusing to allow the application of the Advocate for cross-examining the respondent/ applicant again and again. The other question that has arisen is whether this order of the learned Junior Labour Court refusing to grant the application for cross-examining the worker is an Appealable Order? Section 36-D of

1. R. O. deals with the appeal against the decision of Junior Labour Court. It is reproduced as under: "36-D. Appeal against the decision of Junior Labour Court.-(I) Any party aggrieved by a decision of a Junior Labour Court under section 36-B may prefer an appeal in a Labour Court within fifteen days of the delivery thereof and a decision of the Labour Court in such appeal shall be final. (2) If, in an appeal preferred to it against an order of a Junior Labour Court directing the re-instatement of a workman, the Labour Court makes an order staying the operation of the order of the Junior Labour Court, the Labour Court shall decide such appeal within twenty days of its being preferred Provided that any such appeal pending in a Labour Court at the com mencement of the Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act, 1973, shall be decided within twenty days of the coming into force of that Act: Provided further that, if such appeal is not decided within the period aforesaid, the order of the Labour Court shall stand vacated on the expiration of that period." Under section 36-B of

1. R. O. the Junior Labour Court shall after holding an enquiry pass a decision and if anybody does not appear it can bear and decide the dispute ex parte while under section 36-D of

1. R. O. only such decisions and orders passed under section 36-B of I. R.

0. After holding an enquiry, are appealable. The word 'decision' is not defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The ordinary meaning of 'decision' according to Chambers' Twentieth Century Dictionary is as under: "An act of deciding settlement, judgment, quality of being decided in character." This decision therefore, connotes the final Settlement of judgment, but it does not include the interm orders at all. It may not be a decision o merits but certainly it means a final settlement of the issue. It is well established principle of interpretation that the word should be given its ordinary meaning unless the context so restricts. Under the circumstances an Order on the application of appellant's counsel to recall the respondent/applicant cannot be called a decision within the meaning of section 36-B as such the appeal under section 36-D of I. R. O. cannot be maintainable. The appeal is therefore, dismissed and the case is remanded back to the same Junior Labour Court for completing the proceedings according to law.