1994 PLP 103 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD SHAREEF Versus OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KARACHI
| Citation | 1994 PLP 103 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh |
| Bench Members | Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAREEF Versus OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KARACHI |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 103 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 103 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh bench comprising: Agha Ali Hyder, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 103 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD SHAREEF Versus OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, KARACHI). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- C.M. Jamil, Barrister‑at‑Law for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 21st September, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 38‑‑‑Power of Labour Appellate Tribunal to review its decisions‑‑ Tribunal had not been vested with power to review its own decision under the Ordinance. Electric Supply Corporation v. N.I.R.C. PLD 1982 SC 113; Pakistan Television Corporation v. Babar Zaman 1989 SCMR 1549; Hussain Bux v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others PLD 1970 SC 1; Sandback Charity Trustees v. North Staffordshire Railway Co. (1877) 3 OB 1 and Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafiq PLD 1981 SC 94 ref. Muhammad Tasnim for Applicant.
Judgment & Decree
4. The respondent challenge the order of the N.I.R.C. n a writ petition which came to be ‑ allowed in view of the judgment electric Supply Corporation v. N.I.R.C. reported in PLD 1982 Supreme Court page
113. This decision of the High Court was maintained by the Supreme Court when leave to appeal before it came to be refused on 5‑3‑1985.
5. The informant after a wait of more than three years, on 22‑11‑1988 filed a complaint before the Deputy Commissioner under section 7 of the Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. This came to be dismissed on 21‑12‑1989 on the basis of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Pakistan Television Corporation v. M. Babar Zaman 1989 SCMR page 1549.
6. It was thereafter that the informant filed a Writ Petition being No.D‑103 of 1990 before the Sindh High Court on 28‑1‑1990 which came to be dismissed with the following observations:‑‑ "Hence so far as the petitioner was concerned in view of a finding against him on his appeal, it become a closed chapter as far as this Court is concerned. It is the Supreme Court alone now which can review that finding and this Court has no jurisdiction to change the decision of the Supreme Court."
7. This was challenged before the Supreme Court wherein leave was granted and the petition was converted into an appeal. The appeal was ultimately dismissed by an order dated 29‑3‑1992 with the following observation: "
12. In this view of the matter, the proper course for the appellant would have been to have approached the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sindh for review of its above order dated 22-1‑1980 or to have approached the Labour Court again. Whatever was legally permissible, and should have sought condonation of delay in filing of the above appropriate proceeding for the above reasons:"
8. In the wake of this order the informant again filed a petition before the Labour Court. The Labour Court returned it to him for presentation before this Tribunal as according to it "it had already decided the case on merit and under the law".
9. As this Tribunal had already given its decision the question is whether it had the powers to review its earlier decision?
10. The powers of the Tribunal are to be found in section 38 of the IRO and there is no power of reviewing its own decision. As held in the case of Hussain Bux v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others (PLD 1970 Supreme Court Page 1) the "right of review as the right of appeal are substantive rights and must be given by express enactment." Reference was made to the case of Sand back Charity Trustees' v. North Staffordshire Railway Co. (1877) 3 QBDl) wherein Branwell, L.J. had observed that appeal "does not exist in the nature of things; a right to appeal from any decision of any Tribunal; must be given by express enactment".
11. The same view was taken in the case of Muzaffar Ali v. Muhammad Shafiq (PLD 1981 Supreme Court page 94).
12. Mr. Jameel learned counsel for the respondent has also contended that the matter was past and closed when leave was refused to the informant by the Supreme Court on 5‑3‑1985. It was after almost four years that the informant had sought recourse to the filing of the complaint before the Deputy Commissioner on 22‑11‑1988. It was thereafter that the informant had filed the Petition No. 103 of 1990 before the High Court which came to be dismissed on the ground that it pertained to a matter past and closed.
13. The informant started a fresh round before the Labour Court after the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to earlier dated 29‑3‑1992. His contention therefore was that the informant had not been vigilant in pursuing his remedy.
14. It will be an essay in futility to go into all these contentions for the simple reason that the IRO does not permit this Tribunal to review its decision. Jurisdiction cannot be clutched. It can only be conferred by statute. This Tribunal not being vested with the due powers can hardly look into the matter.
15. I am therefore of the opinion that there is no merit in this information. I will therefore dismiss it. H.B.T./2240/Lb.S Application dismissed.