1989 PLP 983 (PLC(CS))

Laiq Ahmed, Junior of Samiullah Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 15th November, 1988. DECISION This application was filed under section 38(3‑a) of the I.R.O.. 1969, praying that this Tribunal may call for the record of the case filed by the respondents under section 47 of the I.R.O., in the First Sind Labour Court, Karachi, for satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the order dated 20‑7‑1985 passed by the learned First Sind Labour Court, Karachi allowing the application of the respondent under section 47 of I.R.O., 1969.

2. The facts leading to this revision application are that the applicants who were off ice‑bearers of the union are the workmen working with the respondent corporation. During the pendency of Industrial dispute between the respondents and the workmen the present applicants were charge‑sheeted for alleged act of misconduct and domestic inquiry was instituted against them. The respondents moved an application under section 47, I.R.O. to the learned Labour Court for grant of permission to pass the necessary orders on the basis of the result of the domestic enquiry. The learned Labour Court while hearing the Miscellaneous application under section 47 adopted the procedure which is adopted in the decision of the grievance application under section 25‑A, I.R.O. by recording evidence. Evidence of some of the witnesses of the respondent was recorded by the learned Labour Court and some witnesses were also cross‑examined but before the evidence of the respondent could be completed or the evidence of the applicants could be recorded the respondents moved application praying the Labour Court to decide the application under section 47 by summary procedure and not by adopting procedure of regular trial of the grievance application under section 25‑A. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court after discussing the law laid down with regard to the procedure to be adopted while disposing of application under section 47 accepted the contention of the applicants and disposed of the application without considering the evidence already recorded by him.

3. Mr. S.P. Lodhi, representative of the applicants conceded that the procedure adopted by the learned Labour Court to recording evidence, while deciding an application under section 47 was not correct as it would amount to duplication of the trial. It was submitted by Mr. Lodhi that if the applicants were aggrieved by any final order passed by the respondents they had the opportunity to file grievance application under section 25‑A of I.R.O. where full evidence could be recorded.

4. In my opinion, the application under section 47 has to be disposed of by learned Labour Court by way of summary procedure by considering the pleadings of the parties, admitted documents produced by the parties and by hearing the parties. The only point that has to be considered by the learned Labour Court while refusing or granting an application under section 47 is whether the employer has been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of permission B under section 47 and whether it was not a case of victimisation of the workmen. However, for arriving at a decision the learned Labour Court has to apply its mind judiciously to the respective contentions of the parties and give some reasons/grounds for coming to such a decision. In the instant case I find that there is only one sentence in the entire order touching the question of grant of leave which reads as under:‑‑ "From the record made available by the applicant corporation it is evident that there exists a prima facie case against the respondents and the proposed action against them would not amount to victimisation."

5. This order does not show whether the contentions of the applicants/respondents in the original case were considered nor any grounds are mentioned for arriving at the decision. The grounds need not be elaborate but they should be sufficient to show that the learned Labour Court has applied its mind judiciously.

6. In view of the above circumstances, Mr. S.P. Lodhi, representative for the applicants and Mr. Laiq Ahmed holding brief for Mr. Samiullah Khan agree that the case be remanded back to the learned Presiding Officer, Labour (Curt D No. 1 to decide the question of grant of leave under section 47 afresh keeping in view the observation made in this order and unprejudiced by the impugned order. Orders accordingly. As the matter pertains to the year 1984 the learned Presiding Officer is directed to dispose of the matter within three months. A.E./1344/Lb. S Order accordingly.