1982 PLP 63 (PLC)

This appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned IVth Labour Court on 17thMay, 1981, dismissing the complaint filed by 5 workmen against Mr. Saiful Malook Kohistani, a Labour Representa tive, and Mr. Aziz Latif Jamal, Director Incbarge of Hussain Textile mills.

2. The circumstances which form the background of this appeal are that on 19th October, 1978. the appellants herein, whose service had been terminated by the Hussain Textile Mills submitted a joint grievance petition to the learned IVth Labour Court, praying for their reinstate ment in service with full back benefits. Before the said grievance peti tion was admitted to regular hearing, Mr. Kohistani who was engaged by the appellants as their representative in the said application made a Written application to the learned IVth Labour Court requesting that the appellants be allowed to withdraw their grievance petition as the appeal had been called on duty by the management and are no more in terested Labour to pas Passed the following order on 23rd October, 1978 a learned "The application is not yet admitted. The applicant does not w4at t press it. It is f therefore. And kept on record,"

3. The appellants claimed that the above statement was made by Mr. Kohistani without any authority and without consulting them. Accordingly on 4thMay, 1981, they submitted an application to the learned Labour Court to set aside its previous order and to proceed with the matter afresh. This application was dismissed by the learned Labour Court on the short ground that the matter had already been disposed of by the then Presiding Officer of the learned Labour Court by his order, dated 23rd October, 1978, and it was not open to the Labour Court to reopen the matter. Not satisfied with the aforesaid order, the appellants filed a complaint against Mr. Kohistani and Mr. Aziz Latif Jamal on or about 9thMay, 1981. This complaint, as already stated, has been dis missed by the learned IVth Labour Court by its order, dated 17thMay, 1981, and it is this order that has been challenged in appeal before this Tribunal. Now, in the first place, no appeal lies against the impugned order, Subsections (3) and (4) of section 37, I. R. O. read as follows:‑‑ "(3) Any party aggrieved by an award given under subsection or a decision given under section 25‑A or section 34 or a sen tence passed under clause (a) of subsection (5) of section 35 may prefer an appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal within 30 days of the delivery or passing thereof and the decision of the Tribunal in such appeal shall be final. (4) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Ordinance all decisions of, and all orders passed by, a Labour Court shall be final and shall not be called in question in any manner by or before any Court or other authority."

4. Since dismissal of a complaint is not a kind of the orders, which are specified in subsection (3) of section 37,

1. R. O., which specifies the orders which are subject to appeals to this Tribunal, it clear that the impugned order of the learned Labour Court is final and not subject to appeal to this Tribunal.

5. Even on merits, no case for interference is made out with the impugned order, even under the suo motu powers of revision of this Tribunal under subsection (3‑a) of section 38, I. R. O As already stated, the grievance of the appellants is that Mr. Kohistani submitted an application for the withdrawal of their grievance petition without being duly authorised by them in this behalf or consulting them. It may be mentioned tat Mr. Kohistani had been given an Authority letter by the appellants he said authority letter which has been signed/thumb marked by all Appellants reads as follows:‑ Authority Letter "We the undersigned Applicants do hereby appoint Mr. S. M. Kohistani to act, plead and represent us in the above matter with all powers as our representative. Karachi. Applicants." The said letter gives complete powers to Mr. Kohistani to set, plead and represent the appellants in the matter of the grievance petition which had been filed by the appellants. He had thus been given written authority by the appellant to act for the appellant in any manner, which he considered best suited in the matter. Having given to Mr. Kohistani in this letter full authority, therefore, it does not lie in the mouths of the appellants to question the act 9f Mr. Kohistani in withdrawing the grievance petition,

6. On either view of the matter, therefore, I find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same in limine. Appeal dismissed.