1999 PLP 478 (PLC)

Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani, Advocate for the applicant submits that the respondent worker's services were terminated by way of retrenchment on 6‑2‑1997. Worker being aggrieved sent a Grievance Notice to the applicant and then filed a Grievance Application before the learned Labour Court No.IV, Karachi. The applicant filed its reply statement wherein inter alia a number of legal objections were raised: (1) That, after the termination letter the respondent received all his dues in full and final settlement, he, therefore, cannot be taken as aggrieved worker. (2) After the retrenchment the respondent through Union filed a case before N.I.R.C alleging that it Was not a case of termination by way of retrenchment but a lock‑out, this petition was dismissed by N. I.R:C: (3) If, it is not a case of termination by way of retrenchment but a lock‑out, the remedy is not available to the respondent under section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 but section 45 of I.R.O., 1969; (4) Earlier in point of time the respondent through Union had invoked the jurisdiction of N.I.R.C. that it was a case of lock‑out but that petition was dismissed, therefore, respondent cannot adjudicating of the same issue before the learned Labour Court. The learned counsel for the applicant had filed an application before the learned Labour Court praying for deciding first the above said legal pleas. The learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.IV, Karachi after hearing the learned counsel for the applicant as well as respondent's Representative and perusal of the relevant record, came to the conclusion that those were the mixed question of fact 'and law. He, thus, expressed his view that the Courts are supposed to give an opportunity to the parties to lead their respective evidence. Besides, subsection (4‑B) of section 25‑A of I.R.O., 1969 provides guidelines for determining the grievance. The Labour Court is bound to consider all the facts of the case and pass such order as may be just and proper in the circumstances of the case. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that these are purely question of law involving no facts and could be decided by the learned Labour Court without going into the facts of the case. I do not find myself in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. It will be just and proper to allow the parties to lead their respective evidence and then decide the matter in the light of evidence and law produced by the learned counsel for the parties. I, therefore, find no illegality, incorrectness or even impropriety in the order passed by the learned Labour Court No IV, Karachi; As such I am not inclined to exercise the suo motu jurisdiction provided under section 38(.3‑a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. At this stage Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani, learned Advocate for the applicant does not press the Revision Application and begs to withdraw the same which is dismissed accordingly. Order announced in open Court, 8th of February, 1999. H.B.T./299/K/Lab. (Trib.) ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.