1984 PLP 629 (PLC)

The facts briefly stated are that the respondent, Bashir Ahmad filed an application under section 25‑A, I. R. O., before the Labour Court No. VI at Hyderabad for his re‑instatement and back benefits.

2. The application was allowed and he was directed to be re‑instated with back benefits. The appeal was filed against the order, dated 10th September, 1977 and it was dismissed. The appellant went in Constitutional Petition before the Sind High Court, but with no success. The respondent then filed an application under section 51, I. R. O., 1969, for recovery of the amount towards back benefits awarded to him. The learn ed Labour Court vide its order, dated 18th June, 1983 allowed his applica tion and directed the amount to be paid to him within one month or else it should be recovered from the appellant as arrears of Land Revenue. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant has come in this appeal.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, Mr. Hidayatullah for the appellant and Mr. Rafiq Abroad for the respondent at sufficient length. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Rafiq Ahmad that no appeal lies against an order passed under section 51, I. R. O., 1969. The provisions of subsection (3) of section 37, I. R. O., 1969, are clear and provide an appeal against the orders of Labour Court which are Awards for the purpose of

1. R. O., 1969, or decision given under section 25‑A or section 34, I. R. O., 1969, or a sentence passed under clause (c) of subsection (5) of section 33, I. R. O., 1969. Subsection (4) of section 37, I. R. O., 1969 expressly provides that other orders passed and decisions given by the Labour Court are final and shall not be called in question in any manner before any Court or authority, subject, of course, to any sun motu powers, which may be exercised by this Tribunal under subsection (3‑a) of section 38, I. R. O., 1969. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Hidayatullah has contended that since the learned Labour Court computed the benefits in terms of money under subsec tion (2) of section 51, I. R. O., 1969, the order passed would be an Award for the purposes of I. R. O., 1969, and would therefore be appealable. The provisions of section 51, are clear that even in such a situation, the orders passed are under section 51, I. R. O., 1969. Reliance in that res pect has been placed on the decision of Karachi High Court reported in the case of Dilkusha Enterprises Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Fourth Sind Labour Court and 2 others (1983 P L C 1229). It would thus be clear that the order passed on an application under section 51, I. R. O., 1969, is not an Award for the purposes of I. R. O., 1969, as defined therein and would not attract the provisions of section 37(3), I. R. O., 1969. It is, therefore, clear that the order passed on an application under section 51, I. R. O., 1969, is not at all appealable. Reliance in that respect has also been placed on an unreported decision of this Tribunal in Appeal No. KAR/56/83, in the case of Trustees of Port of Karachi v. Muhammad Rafi son of Abdul Ghafoor, decided on 21st April, 1983.

4. The result is that the appeal is dismissed. A. E. Appeal dismissed.