1981 PLP 934 (PLC(CS))

Mahmood Abdul Ghani for Applicant. Mirza Muhammad Kazim for Respondent. Date of hearing : 9th February, 1981. The record and proceedings in the case Naseeb Zada son of Sher Zada v. Usman Textile Mills Ltd., pending for disposal before the learned Second Labour Court has been called for in the exercise of the suo motu powers of revision of this Tribunal under subsection (3‑a) of section 38 T. R. O., for examining the correctness, legality and propriety of the orders passed by the learned Labour Court on 16th November, 1980, rejecting the application made on behalf of the Usman Textile Mills Ltd., for summoning Suleman Gaba, the Senior Executive of the company, and the order made by the learned Labour Court on 7th December, 1980, rejecting the application made by the Usman Textile Mills Ltd., for summoning the Assistant Director, Labour Welfare, in regard to Suleman Gaba being notified as Factory Manager of Usman Textile Mills Ltd.

2. The circumstances in which the above two orders have been passed are that a workman of Usman Textile Mills Ltd., by name Naseeb Zada, was dismissed from service by the Senior Executive, Suleman Gaba, by his order, dated 5th June, 1980, on the charge of misconduct. In para 17 of his grievance petition, Naseeb Zada specifically disputed the competency of Suleman Gaba the Senior Executive, to pass orders of his dismissal from service. In his evidence before the learned Labour Court, the workman Naseeb Zada, reiterated the averments made in his grie vance petition. The Usman Textile Mills, on the other hand, appa rently rested content with the assertion made in their reply statement that Usman Gaba has been notified as Manager under the Factories Act and was fully competent to dismiss workman Naseeb Zada. How ever, S. K. Ali Ahmed, the Liaison Officer of the Usman Textile Mills, who was the Enquiry Officer in respect of workman Naseeb Zada, stated in his cross‑examination before the learned Labour Court that Suleman Gaba had no hiring or firing power. Thereupon, on the same day, an application was moved on behalf of Usman Textile Mills Ltd., for sum moning Suleman Gaba for the purposes of establishing that he had been notified as the Manager under the Factories Act. This application, how ever, was rejected by the learned Labour Court by its order, dated 16th November, 1980. Thereafter on 25th November, 1930, another application was moved on behalf of the Usman Textile Mills, for summoning the Factory Inspector for producing the record relating to the Notification of Suleman Gaba as the Factory Manager of the Usman Textile Mills. Alongwith this letter was annexed a copy of a notice, dated 9th July, 1979, addressed to the Assistant Director Labour, notifying Mr. Haji Suleman as Factory Manager of the Usman Textile Mills. This application was also rejected by the learned Labour Court by its order, dated 7th December 1980.

3. I have heard Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani, who appeared for the Usman Textile Mills, and Mirza Muhammad Kazim, who represented workman, Naseeb Zada.

4. The first point for consideration is whether this Tribunal can initiate proceedings in revision in the exercise of its suo motu powers under subsection (3‑a) of section 38, I.R.O., on the application of the Usman Textile Mills Ltd., which was admittedly a party to the proceed ings before the learned Labour Court, in view of the decision of a Divi sion Bench of the Karachi High Court in the case of Janat Textile Mills v. S.L.A.T. (P L D 1979 Kar. 725). That decision was examined at some length by this Tribunal in the case of Messrs Khawaja Auto Ltd. v. Syed Abdul Rehman, decided on 12th March, 1980, and while respectfully agreeing with the decision of the High Court in the case of Jonat Textile Mills that an aggrieved party was not entitled to move an application to this Tribunal for the exercise of its suo motu powers of revision, it was pointed out that there was clearly a difference between a party having a right to demand the exercise of suo mote revisional powers by this Tribunal and the laying of an information by a party before the Tribunal to enable it to determined whether it should or should not exercise its suo motu powers of revision, for after all this Tribunal can only act on information received by it, from some source and this source can even be a party to the proceedings. In the instant case, the proceedings have been initiated upon information laid before this Tribunal by the Usman Textile Mills. In view of the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Khawaja Auto Cars Ltd., the proceedings before this Tribunal do not suffer from any infirmity.

5. It has next to be considered whether the two impugned orders suffer from any illegality or impropriety and just grounds exist for revising the same. As already pointed on, the stand of workman Naseeb Zada all along bad been that Suleman Gaba was not competent to pass orders of his dismissal. The Usman Textile Mills, therefore, had due notice of this objection on the part of the workman. This objection was greatly strengthened by the admission of the Mills, own witness, S. K. Ali Ahmad, that Suleman Gaba had no hiring or firing powers. In view of this position, the orders of the learned Labour Court would appear to be at least technically sound. This, however, is not the end of the matter for, if in fact, Suleman Gaba is notified as the Manager under the Factories Act, as would appear from the notice, dated 9th July, 1979, addressed to the Assistant Director Labour and the letter, dated 17th December, 1980, from the Joint Director Labour to the Usman Textile Mills Ltd., regarding the Notification of Mr. Suleman Gaba as Factory Manager, it will not only result in multiplicity of proceedings and further litigation if evidence on the paint whether Suleman Gaba was notified as factory Manager is shut out. This Tribunal, in the case of Shoukat Ali v. President of Allied Bank of Pakistan (1980 P L C 1058), while setting aside the orders of dismissal in respect of a workman on .the ground that the orders had been passed by an authority not competent to dismiss the workman, had allowed the Bank the option to take appropriate proceedings against the workman from the stage that they were held to be invalid. In view of all these circumstances, while not interfering with the two orders, respec tively, dated 16th November, 1980 and 7th December, 1980, passed by the learned Labour Court, I would leave it to the learned Labour Court to consider whether it would not be in the interest of justice and elimina tion of further litigation between the parties to examine the Factory Inspector for satisfying itself whether Suleman Gaba in fact was notified as Factory Manager on the date that the dismissal orders in respect of workman Naseeb Zada were passed. Case remanded.