2013 PLP 268 (SCMR)

KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.

The petitioner impugns order dated 7-8-2012, passed by a learned Division Bench of High Court of Sindh at Karachi, in Constitution Petition No.D-154 of 2011, in exercise of powers under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, where the petitioner questioned order passed by the Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissing his application for review of order passed by the Tribunal.

2. Brief facts necessary to decide this petition are that respondent No.1 filed Grievance Petition No.32 of 2002 under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before the Labour Court for reinstating him into service along with all other back benefits, which was dismissed, vide order dated 30-3-2002. He filed Labour Appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 37(3) of IRO, 1969, which was repealed by IRO, 2002 and as such the appeal was transferred to the High Court. Since the petitioner failed to appear despite service, the appeal was heard and decided on merits on 3-9-2007; order of Labour Court was set aside, and the respondent was reinstated with back benefits. The petitioner filed an application under section 152, C.P.C. read with Order XLVII, C.P.C. and when this application was pending in the High Court, the matter due to change in law was again transferred to learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, who after hearing the petitioner dismissed the review application vide order dated 22-12-2010. This order was impugned before the High Court by filing a writ petition, which too was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 7-8-2012. Hence, this petition.

3. Heard Mr. Abdul Qadir Khan, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner. He has vehemently argued that under section 48(1) read with section 45(2) of IRO 2002, the Labour Appellate Tribunal has to exercise the powers as vested in the Labour Court including the provision of Civil Procedure Code to the extent they are not in conflict with the provisions of IRO, as such review petition was maintainable.

4. We have taken into consideration the contention raised by the learned counsel and perused the record. In reply to our query whether despite passing of the orders by the High Court as the Labour Appellate Tribunal, did the petitioner implement the same and reinstate the respondents into service giving them the back benefits, the reply was in negative. The learned counsel stated that the petitioner is not ready to implement the order passed by the High Court.

5. In order to appreciate the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we have gone through the application for review filed before the Labour Appellate Tribunal. From the perusal of the application, it appears that only ground on which the petitioner sought review of the order passed by the Tribunal is that "That I further say that appeal has been filed in this case before this honourable Court being Labour Appeal No.229 of 2006, which is also being contested effectively. There was no occasion for us to avoid or ignore the proceedings, had we knowledge of the pendency of above appeal, we would have made appearance. That the appellant lost his case before the Labour Court and as such we had to defend/contest the orders passed by Labour Court so we would not afford to be absent by refusing to receive the summons or to avoid service of summons", which hardly constitute a ground for review of order passed by the competent Court. It has not been alleged by the petitioners that they have not been served and even if they were not served from whom they came to know that the appeal has been filed before Labour Appellate Tribunal and allowed nor the date of knowledge of such information was given.

6. Without going into the question whether the review petition is maintainable or not, as the petitioner has failed to make out a case for review of order, therefore, no purpose will be served by remanding the matter, the petition merit dismissal.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the listed petition is dismissed. Leave refused. MWA/R-5/SC Petition dismissed.