1989 PLP 631 (PLC)

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ --S.38(8)‑‑West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.0.12‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Art.199‑‑Termination and reinstatement of worker‑‑Petitioner/employer contended that Tribunal, after it had admitted his appeal to regular hearing, failed to make any order on his stay application even for prescribed twenty days which amounted to failure of Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, that no grievance notice having been given by respondent, order of reinstatement of respondent passed by Labour Court was on face of it without jurisdiction and that account of absence of respondent, dismissal order was served upon him through his father, but petition under S.25‑A, of Industrial Relations Ordinance was filed by respondent after more than four years from service of dismissal order him, therefore, order of reinstatement of respondent passed by Court without adverting to circumstances of service on respondent, was without jurisdiction‑‑Points raised by petitioner needed examination, Constitutional petition filed by petitioner was admitted and operation of order of re‑instatement respondent was suspended. Tariq Khattak v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1980 P L C 1027 and Punjal ‑etable Ghee and General Mills Ltd., Lahore v. Chairman Punjab Labour Court No.l and 2 others P L D 1978 Lah. 1065 ref. Submits that on account of omission of the learned Labour Appellant Tribunal to grant any order of suspension of the operation of the order of reinstatement of respondent No.3, the appeal before the said Tribunal had no Ire remained an adequate remedy and, therefore, this writ petition is competent. He inter alia raises the following points in this writ petition:‑ (i) that the failure of the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore in not making any order on the stay application filed by the petitioner even for 20 days allowed under subsection 8 of section 38 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 after it had admitted the appeal to regular hearing, Amounts of failure, to exercise jurisdiction vested in it especially when the plea was that the respondent having been held by Enquiry Officer have defalcated a large sum of money, was likely to make further embezzlement of money if actually reinstated in the same job. (ii) that no grievance notice having been given, the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi was on the I 1; face of it without jurisdiction. (iii) that the dismissal order having been served upon respondent No.3 through his father in the year, 1978 on account of absence of respondent No.3, and the petition under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 having been filed before the respondent Labour Court on 9‑5‑1982 was hopelessly barred by time and, therefore, the order of reinstatement passed by the said Court without adverting to the circumstance of said service on respondent No.1 was without jurisdiction.

2. Reliance for the said points is placed on Tariq Khattak v. Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1980 P L C 1027 and Punjab Vegetable Ghee and General Mills Ltd., Lahore v. Chairman Punjab Labour Court No.l and 2 others P L D 1978 Lah. 1065. The points raised needed examination. Admit. Notice.

3. The operation of the order of reinstatement of respondent No.3 dated 5‑2‑1983 passed by respondent No.2 would remain suspended in the meanwhile. This is, however, subject to notice to the respondents for a very early date. H.B.T./P‑72/L Petition admitted