2018 PLP 239 (PLC)

ZAHOOR AHMED MENGAL, MEMBER.

This appeal is directed against the order dated 15-10-2015 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-III, Hub at Balochistan, wherein the application filed by applicant under section 41 of Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, 2010, was disposed by the consent of appellant.

2. Precise facts relevant for disposal of instant appeal are that the applicant/respondent was permanent employee of appellants company since 2001 and insured person of BESSI at Hub and applied on 05-06-2015 for an advance amount of his sick father but on the suggestion of company he tendered his resignation and again he submitted an application for continuation of his job, but the company refused to restore him on job and then he submitted an application to authority of Labour Department dated 15-09-2015. That the applicant/respondent further served grievance notice on 09-11-2015 to appellant Company for relief but he received no reply, hence filed application under section 41 BIRA, 2010 before the learned 3rd Labour Court at Hub.

3. The appellants replied the application wherein raised certain legal objections.

4. The Learned Trial Court after hearing parties vide order dated 15-10-2015 disposed of the matter with the consent of parties with the directions to the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- to the applicant/respondent with further direction, that if the applicant/ respondent apply for job he will be considered new employee in the company.

5. The appellant/respondent being aggrieved from the order of Trial Court preferred the instant appeal.

6. Mr. Muhammad Usman Lasi, Advocate argued the matter and stated that the Trial court unlawfully passed an order ignoring the record of the case as well as the evidence produced by the parties, the application of the respondent was badly time barred, but wrongly condoned by the Trial Court. He further contended that the Trial Court mentioned in its order the consent of the representative of the appellant, but in fact the representative of appellant never gave his consent for payment of Rs.2,00,000/- to the respondents. Lastly, he prayed for setting aside the order dated 15-10-2015 passed by Learned Trial Court.

7. Mr. Muhammad Hayat Barech, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and stated that as the Trial Court passed the impugned order with the consent of both the parties, therefore, no appeal lies against the consent order. He also maintained that, due to the consent of the parties before the Learned Trial Court, the merits of the case were also not touched in impugned order.

8. Record of the case perused, the Trial Court after recording of the evidence and completing the proceeding fixed the case for arguments, meanwhile both the parties submitted their written arguments which are part and parcel of the record. The representative of the appellant namely A K Gillani who is also the advisor of the appellant personally submitted written arguments on behalf of the appellant, and the case was fixed for order on 29-09-2016 but on 29-09-2016 due to strike of the Bar the parties requested the Court to adjourned the matter to another date so the parties would be able to argue the matter verbally, therefore, case was fixed for 06-10-2016. On the same date the arguments were heard from both parties and the representative and advisor A K Gillani was also in attendance. The Learned Trial Court fixed the matter for 15-10-2016 for announcement of judgment but before the announcement, the representative of appellant A K Gillani give his consent in open Court to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the applicant/respondent and the applicant/ respondent accepted the offer advanced on behalf of appellant in result, the Trial Court passed order dated 15-10-2015 with the consent of the parties.

9. On 16-11-2016 the appellant filed a review application before the Trial Court which was dismissed on 10-12-2016, the same has not been challenged before any forum.

10. It is well settled principle of law that once parties of a matter consented in a case to be decided in such a manner and in result order passed in accordance to the consent of the parties in that manner, the parties are not entitled to resile from their stance subsequently, further when parties making statement, conceding to the claims of each other and because of such consent order passed is competent and no revision or appeal is maintainable. In this regard reliance can be placed on following judgments: (i) (PLD 1993 (SC) 418) (ii) (1989 SCMR 926) (iii) (1990 CLC 1492).

11. The appellant not succeeded to prove that the representative/advisor A.K Gillani did not give consent before the Trial Court for payment of Rupees Two Lacs, therefore, the order passed by the Learned Trial Court is not liable to be interfered by this Court as the same is based on the consent of the parties, hence the impugned order herein dated 15-10-2015 is upheld and the appeal being not maintainable is hereby dismissed.

12. The parties are left to bear their own cost.

13. The copy of Judgment along with original record of Trial Court be sent to Trial Court. Case after completion be consigned to record.

14. Given under my hand and seal of the court on 22nd August, 2017. MQ/2/BLT Appeal dismissed.