1971 PLP 207 (PLC)

(3) The Court shall, for the purpose of trying an offence under sections 26 and 28 have the same powers as -that of a Court of the Magistrate of First Class, under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898) and shall for the purpose of appeal from a sentence passed by it be deemed to be a Court of Session under that Code. (4) No court-fee shall be payable for filing, recording or obtaining of any document of any kind in or from the Court." The corresponding section in the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, is section 12, which is exactly the same as section 11 of the previous Ordinance. The corresponding section in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is section 36, which reads as follows: " Procedure, and powers of Labour Court. -(1) Subject to the Provisions of this Ordinance, a Labour Court shall follow as nearly as possible summary procedure as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898). (2) A Labour Court shall, for the purpose of adjudicating and determining any industrial dispute, be deemed to be a civil Court and shall have the same powers as are vested in such Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Act V of 19.8), including the powers of- (a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath ; (b) compelling the production of documents and material subjects ; and (c) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents. (3) A Labour Court shall, for the purpose of trying an offence under the Ordinance, have the same powers as. are vested in the Court of a Magistrate of the first class under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Act V of 1898) and shall, for the purpose of appeal from a sentence passed by it be deemed to be a Court of Session under that Code. (4) No court-fee shall be payable for filing, exhibiting or recording any document in or obtaining any document from, a Labour Court." From the perusal of the afore-mentioned 3 sections we find that in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 11969, the clause, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this Ordinance, follow such procedure as may be prescribed," which finds mention in the Ordinances of 1959 and 1968, is omitted in section 36 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In view of the above the learned counsel for the respondent contended that rule 15 which was framed under the Ordinance of 19: 1 3:ad followed under Ordinance of 1969, was inconsistent with s relevant provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and as such this Court could not allow the petitioners' Union to produce additional evidence in view of the provisions of section 67 (2) (b) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This contention in our view has no force because the learned counsel failed to peruse section 66 of the Industrial Relations A Ordinance, 1969, which reads as follows: "Powers to make rules. -(I) The Provincial Government may, subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Ordinance. (2) Rules made under this section may provide that a contravention thereof shall be punishable with fine which may extend to one hundred rupees." The framers of this Ordinance instead of making this provision in section 36, separately made the provision under section 66 and as such section 67 (2) (b) will not act as a bar to the application of this rule. Under section 67 it has been specifically mentioned that this section will not prejudice the provisions of section 24 of the General Clauses Act of 1897, which reads as follows: "Where any (Central Act) or Regulation is, after the com mencement of this Act, repealed and re-enacted with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any (appointment, notification), order, scheme, rule, form or byelaw (made or) issued under the repealed Act or Regulation, shall, so far as it is not inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been (made or) issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any (appointment, notification), order scheme, rule, form or bye-law (made or) issued under the provisions so re-enacted (and when any) Central Act or Regulation which by a notification under section 5 or 5-A of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874, or any like law, has been extended to any local area, has by a subsequent notification, been withdrawn from and re-extended to such area or any part thereof, the provisions of such Act or Regulation shall be deemed to have been repealed and re-enacted in such area or part within the meaning of this section." Taking all the aforementioned circumstances we find that rule 15 is still in force till such time new rules are framed under the current Ordinance. We accordingly allow the peti tioners Union to produce additional evidence as prayed for.