1997 PLP 253 (PLC)

The petitioner had filed a grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore, at Ferozewala. The employer, namely, the General Manager, Quality Textile Mills Ltd., Ferozewala. through his counsel, entered appearance in the Court, on receiving intimation, but on a certain subsequent date, owing to absence of the respondent, ex parte proceedings were taken against him. The grievance petition was accepted ex parse and the petitioner was also granted all the back benefits, by a judgment announced by the Labour Court on 2‑4‑1996.

2. The worker lodged a complaint under section 25‑A(8) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against officers of the mill, having allegedly disallowed him to resume duty and having withheld his dues. It was prayed that warrants of arrest be issued against the Authorities of the Mills and they be punished and each sentenced to one year imprisonment

3. On behalf of the Mills, an application for recalling the order of ex parte proceedings was made on 3‑4‑1996, that is, on the very next date, following announcement for the ex parte decision. The worker filed his reply on 9‑4‑1996, requesting that the application of the employer for 'restoration/review' be rejected. It may be noted that there was no question of restoration of any petition, nor review of any order was being sought. Plain prayer made by the Textile Mills management was that the ex parte proceedings taken and the ex parte decision rendered against them be set aside, so that they could contest the case on merits. It was so simple and normal a move that it admitted of no confusion and no exception could be taken to it, but the authorized representative of the employee, in his familiar way, endeavored to twist the issue, by imparting to it altogether a different dimension and import.

4. The employee, it appears, had also made a bid to have the decision dated 2‑4‑1996 executed, alleging that the employer had not cared a fig for the orders of the Court and asking the Court to adopt coercive measures against the employer, whereupon the latter sought suspension of the aforesaid process. The learned Labour Court suspended. operation of its ex parte decision dated 2‑4‑1996, on 18‑4‑1996, with a notice to the employee the 'decree‑holder' for 24‑4‑1996, which is incidentally also the date already fixed in the main application made for rescission of the decision dated 2‑4-1996.

5. Now the employee, on having been misled, has been made to rush to this Court for undoing what cannot be treated to be an unusual act on the part of the lower Court, in staying execution of its ex parte decision. By adopting a queer logic and by resorting to his odd ways of obviating adjudication of legal issues by competent Court in proper manner, at opportune time, the representative has dragged the worker into this forum, although only two days are left, and he could conveniently and competently raise the same plea in the lower Court. He maintains, by referring to 1985 PLC 155, that a Labour Court is not empowered to review its own orders, stating, at the same time, that the Court below has suspended the execution process by way of review, and as this could not legally be done, he was left with no alternative, except to agitate the matter before this forum, with a request that the order dated 18‑4‑1996 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court be undone.

6. I am afraid, the worthy representative has put in this extra labour and burdened the litigant with enormous expenditure for nothing, as the I learned lower Court has not rendered the impugned order by reviewing any earlier order. It was an act performed by the Court concerned in continuation of series of different developments, taking place from time to time, ever since submission of the grievance petition, and especially after announcement of the ex parte decision. The Court concerned was certainly not divested of power to pass such orders for furtherance of ends of justice. A Court or an Authority making an order can certainly recall it, or vary or amend it, before it has finally and irrevocably been acted upon. Even if that could not be done, and the learned Labour Court had fallen in error in passing an injunctive order, a few days before, on 18‑4‑1996, it may not be allowed to operate or remain intact, over any length of period, if the employee is able to convince the Court that such an order could not lawfully be rendered and the time to do it is just day after tomorrow. The employee could certainly afford to wait for two days more, the disputed order having been passed four days before, on 18‑4‑1996. Actually payment of past dues to him and his reinstatement, ordered in ex parte manner, by the Labour Court, on 2‑4‑1996, are the events which have not materialized so far, even though he has resorted to initiation of punitive action against the defaulting employer the 'judgment‑debtor', by invoking the provisions of section 25‑A(8) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. I fail to follow, if this has been the state of affairs, why and how on earth could the employee so unscrupulously be exploited and distracted and made a victim of increasing disillusionment by being unnecessarily brought before this forum, with a pseudo or illusory expectation, that he would be afforded certain measure of relief. This is something highly reprehensible and extremely distressing. The more the employee is left 'unguided' by the worthy representative, the better it would be for him. The poor fellow could normally and comfortably place before the Labour Court his view‑point on the next date i.e. on 24‑4‑1996, and the Labour Court may come to the conclusion that there was no justification for rescission of the ex parte decision, and for even temporary suspension of the process of execution of the said decision, and this object could even be achieved without the employee being ill‑advised to resort to the extreme measure of prosecuting the employer, who, otherwise, might well have developed a soft corner for the oppressed employee. The employer also might lose, and the employee might ultimately win, even on merits, following a genuine and fair contest.

7. Like a deaf and dumb being I am not supposed to keep on seeing what is happening and go on listening to what is being said. It is the sole appellate and revisional Tribunal of the Province in the sphere of labour cases. It is also expected to exercise a supervisory role and see to it that the C Labour Courts in their functioning and the labour lawyers in their advocacy keep themselves on the right track.

8. The move made before this forum, by way of the present revision petition, makes no sense indeed, and I am not inclined to entertain it, even for a moment. It is hereby dismissed in limine, with the disdain it deserves, A copy of this order shall immediately be conveyed, to the Court below for information and guidance. A.A./855/Lb.P Revision dismissed.