1996 PLP 505 (PLC)

(b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 36 & 37(3)‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Dismissal‑‑‑Joint grievance petition filed by employees against their dismissal was dismissed by Labour Court holding that joint petition on behalf of all employees was not maintainable‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Dismissal of petition was not tenable as all relevant facts which give rise and which are foundation of grievance petition, constitute cause of action‑‑‑Facts and circumstances having links with one another in point of time and purpose or as cause and effect and also as to whether the various acts are so related to produce a particular result, are also required to be ascertained and established in evidence‑‑‑No solid finding' can be given about common grievance or common cause of action unless such relevant facts have been established‑‑‑Such facts can be ascertained if parties are allowed to produce evidence, for in absence of evidence no effective finding can be given about same‑‑‑Labour Court having decided all such disputed points without recording any evidence, its order dismissing grievance petition was set aside and case was remanded to decide factum of competency of grievance petition afresh after affording parties opportunity to lead evidence. Syed Ghazi Shah for Appellants. Bashir Ahmed for Respondent. This appeal under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 hereinafter referred as the Ordinance impugns the legality of the order dated 24‑2‑1994 of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haripur by which the preliminary objection of the respondent that the joint petition under section 25‑A (10) of the Ordinance on behalf of all the petitioner‑appellants was not, maintainable, was accepted and consequently the petition was dismissed as incompetent in its present form. The factual background of the controversy is that the petitioner- appellants were working as Assembly Workers in the establishment of the respondent. The workers formed trade union and the petitioners were elected as the office‑bearers of the union on 19‑2‑1992. The petitioners applied for registration of the union arid on 20‑2‑1992 they notified the names of the office -bearers to the respondent. This annoyed the respondent and the petitioners Nos. 4 and 5 were charge‑sheeted for absence from duty for various periods and they replied the charges. But, thereafter, they were not allowed entry in the factory and ultimately all the petitioners were dismissed from service on 23‑2‑1992 by a verbal order. The objection of the petitioners is that the provisions of Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance had been violated as their services could not be terminated through verbal order as the law requires that such an order should be in writing and shall contain explicit reasons justifying the order. In the written statement the first preliminary objection which is relevant for the purpose of this appeal is to the effect that the present petition is 'not competent under section 25‑A(10) of the Ordinance as the petitioners have different cause of action. On merit, the allegations, in the petition, were refuted. It is to be noted that this written statement was filed on 15‑I2‑1992 and on 11‑1‑1993 the list of witnesses was filed and thereafter the case was adjourned for evidence to 4‑2‑1993. The matter lingered on for some dates without any progress when on 5‑5‑1993 the respondents filed the application for the dismissal of the petition mainly on the ground as mentioned in para. 3 of the application which reads: "That the present petition under section 25‑A has been filed through C.B.A. who is not authorised under the law to file the petition on their behalf because the aggrieved person can only file the petition under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969." The parties were then directed to submit written arguments and in the light of that the impugned order was passed. I heard both the learned counsel in support of their respective viewpoints and went through the record. At the very outset it is to be noted that in the written statement the preliminary objection relevant to the appeal was that the petitioner‑appellants with different cause of action could not file petition under section 25‑A(10) of the Ordinance whereas in the application dated 5‑5‑1993 for dismissal of the petition the reason for dismissal has been shown as that the petition has been filed by C.B.A. which is not authorised to file such an application. It thus appears that in these two entirely different stances have been taken for non maintain ability of the petition. In any case the grievance expressed in the petition is that petitioner‑appellants have been removed from service mala fidely on account of retaliation as they were active in forming the trade union and of which they ultimately became the office‑bearers. They have also alleged that they tried to attend to their duties and to join the enquiry but were prevented from doing so. They have also alleged that all of them were dismissed from service through verbal order on 23‑2‑1992 and this dismissal was because of the alleged absence of all the petitioner‑appellants from duty. These facts were controverted in the written statement. Under section 36 of the Ordinance the Labour Court shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall be governed by Civil Procedure Code. The provisions of Civil Procedure Code like Order I, Rules 9, 10 and 12 and also Order 2, Rule 6 and various others were required to have been kept into consideration while disposing of the application. All the relevant facts which gave rise and which were the foundation of the present petition would constitute cause of action. The facts and circumstances having links with one another in point of time and purpose or as cause and effect and also as to whether the various acts are so related to produce a particular result were also required to be ascertained and established in evidence. It is obvious that no solid finding could be given about common grievance or common cause of action unless the above relevant facts had been established. All these can be ascertained if the parties are allowed to produce evidence and in absence of evidence no effective finding can be given about it. But it is curious to note that the Labour Court has decided all these disputed points without recording any evidence. This appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded to the Labour Court to allow both the parties to lead evidence and on the basis of this evidence decide the factum of competency of the grievance petition afresh. Parties would bear their own costs. H.B.T./206/N.‑W.F.P. Order accordingly.