1998 PLP 28 (PLC)

Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited v. Sindh Labour Court, Karachi 1973 PLC 111 ref. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi for Appellant. Date of hearing: 24th February, 1997. The appellant is a permanent workman employed by Sindh Engineering Private, Limited. The management issued a show-cause notice against the workman and charge-sheets dated 20-11-1996 and 18-12-1996 alongwith order of suspension. No action followed these disciplinary measures. The appellant then filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O. seeking interim relief to quash the enquiry proceedings started against him. The learned Labour Court found that under the I.R.O. it had no jurisdiction to stay domestic enquiry, the powers under section 25-A of the I.R.O. for granting of relief being very limited. lack of a grievance notice would vitiate the proceedings under section 25-A and grievance notice to the employer is a prerequisite to invoke jurisdiction of Labour Court. The learned Labour Court accordingly dismissed the application for interim relief and the petition under section 25-A since final order had not been passed and the petition filed was premature.

2. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi, Advocate for the appellant has pointed out that under section 36(2) of the I.R.O. the Labour Court enjoys powers of a Civil Court. This Tribunal has pointed out in a number of cases that these powers are very much limited. The powers are to be exercised only "to adjudicate and determine any industrial dispute", and their scope is also limited, the powers being, for enforcing attendance of witnesses, compelling production of documents and issuing commissions". Although these three illustrations are not exhaustive any other powers would also be similar under the principles of ejusdem generis of the interpretation of Statute. It was held by Sindh High Court in the case of Brooks Bond Pakistan Limited v. Sindh Labour Court Karachi 1973 PLC 111, that Labour Court has no authority to pass order in nature of Interim Injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. restraining employer from terminating service of employee/applicant. This decision was given by Tufail Ali, C. J. and Fakhruddin Ibrahim, J. sitting in a Division Bench and in the judgment the limitations on the powers of Labour Court have been discussed. Section 25-A of the I.R.O. relates to such limitations. The cases should be on determination of any industrial dispute in respect of right guaranteed under any law, award or settlement. It also speaks of the notice by the worker to the employer and the communication of the reply and fixes time limits for action.

3. Mr. Ashraf Hussain Rizvi has quoted some decisions concerning powers of the Service Tribunals but there is no analogy between powers of Service Tribunals and powers of the Labour Appellate Tribunals under the I.R.O. If the power to stop domestic enquiry or show-cause notice is conceded and given to the workers then there will be no limit to such cases with the result that the management will be throttled, before any action is taken by it as provided in the labour laws. There will be no end to applications for interim relief apart from redress of grievances under section 25-A. Before any action is taken by the employer he will be dragged to Labour Court to stop him from doing so. Such powers are not contemplated under the I.R.O.

4. The order of the Labour Court is accordingly maintained and the appeal is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./206/Lb.S ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.