1995 PLP 299 (PLC)

This is a suo motu revision application under section 38(3‑A) of I.R.O., 1969, fled by the applicant against the impugned order, dated 13‑11‑1985 passed by the Sindh Labour Court No. VI, Karachi, who had rejected the legal objections of the applicant challenging the maintainability of an Application No. 8 of 1985, under section 32(1‑A) of the I.R.O., 1969 filed by the respondent‑Union.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31‑1‑1985, a settlement between the management of the applicant and the union was signed for period up to 31‑12‑1985. This settlement was signed on behalf of the union by one Shabbir A. Shaikh and during the pendency of this Settlement a Charter of Demands, dated 13‑6‑1985, signed by the same Shabbir A. Shaikh was raised and after failure of the conciliation proceedings before the Labour Directorate, an Industrial Dispute bearing No.8/85 was instituted before the learned Vth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi. Therefore, the management of the applicant had raised preliminary legal objections before the learned Labour Court against the maintainability of the said industrial dispute praying therein that the same be dismissed. The learned Labour Court, vide its impugned order, dated 13‑11‑1985 had overruled the legal objections of the management of the applicant, hence, the present suo motu revision 'application under section 38(3‑A) of I.R.O., 1969 filed by the applicant before this Tribunal on 11‑12‑1985.

3. The respondent‑Union had resisted the legal objections of the applicant's management and claimed the alleged settlement, dated 31‑1‑1985 to be fake one and clandestine deed aimed at depriving the workers of even the existing benefits and conditions of service. It was further claimed by the union that the signatures of the General Secretary on such settlement were false, hence, the alleged settlement was not lawful settlement, therefore, it could not debar the respondent‑Union from raising any industrial dispute. Thus, the legal objections of the applicant's management were liable to be dismissed.

4. After hearing both the parties, the learned Labour Court had passed the impugned order. The relevant observations are as under:‑‑ "So, as argued by the learned applicant's counsel it is yet to be seen if the said settlement was arrived under due process of law and the relevant rules framed in this regard; if it was a fake document as is being alleged by the applicant. This would certainly require the recording of the evidence at the proper stage of the matter. Presently it could not be said if it was really a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings within the meaning of section 2 (xxiv) and section 39 of I.R.O. and if the parties had signed such document in free and fair atmosphere and with full understanding of the matter:"

5. I have heard Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned counsel for the applicant's management and Mr. Abdul Majeed, the learned Representative on behalf of the respondent‑union and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the. case. It was argued by Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned counsel for the applicant that Karachi Sheraton Hotel is an establishment under the Ordinance, 1969 and it was registered, as such and in the Registration Certificate, dated 28‑6‑1982, the applicant, namely S. Muzaffar Ali was shown as the employer, and further that he was also holding a General Power of Attorney on behalf of the management, therefore, he was fully competent to submit the present suo motu revision application. It was further argued by Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani that during the period of operation of the settlement, the union could not raise a fresh industrial dispute and also a strike notice dated 15‑1‑1987 in violation of section 44,of. I.R.O. 1969.

6. While on the other hand, Mr. Abdul Majeed, the learned representative for the respondent‑union has submitted that the alleged settlement, dated 31‑1‑1985 was a fake document, therefore, to ascertain the allegations and counter‑allegations regarding its genuineness the evidence is necessary to be recorded, hence, the learned Labour Court has rightly observed this view Mr. Abdul Majeed, the learned Representative for the respondent‑union has pointed out that on 15‑2‑1986; a settlement was arrived at between the parties, but, this fact was deliberately concealed by the applicant in his stay application, moved on 31‑1‑1987. Mr. Majeed has contended that to avail of the present revision, after a lapse of nearly 2 years and 8 months, is in gross abuse of process of law in so far as `revision' unlike‑`appeal' is used as an instrument to camouflage the dispute raised on 1‑1‑1987 in the prescribed manner after the settlement valid and operative for a period of one year from 1‑1‑1986 to 31‑12‑1986 and it would be patent from the perusal of application, dated 31‑1‑1987 that this material and important fact of settlement on charter of demand, dated 1‑1‑1986 expired on 1‑12‑1986 had been wilfully suppressed and which made the party guilty of supressioveri and suggestio falsi', therefore, the applicant, in a fraudulent manner had obtained an order, dated 31‑1‑1987. However, both the parties, in support of their arguments have relied upon a number of Authorities, which in my view would not be feasible to be thrashed out, at present. The learned Labour Court is very much correct in arriving at a conclusion that on all these matters, the recording of evidence is necessary. I would also hold the same C view and would dismiss the present revision application with a direction that the matter be decided by the learned Labour Court on merits and all the legal objections of both, the parties, if any, be also decided by the learned Labour Court after affording proper opportunity to both the parties.

7. For the reasons stated by me above, I would dismiss the present suo motu revision application of the applicant and would maintain the impugned order. The orders of this Tribunal, dated 22‑12‑1985 and 31‑1‑1987 are hereby re‑called. The R&P be sent immediately to learned Labour Court No.II, Karachi, with a direction that the matter be decided, as early as possible. Order accordingly. A.E./1079/Lb.S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Revision dismissed.