1988 PLP 685 (PLC(CS))

M.A. Javed for Petitioners. S.M. Arif for Respondent No.1 Ch. Nematullah for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 24th January, 1988. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 29‑9‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.4, Faisalabad, whereby the petition of respondent No.1 for permission to terminate the services of more than 50% workers was accepted, is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

2. Respondent No.1 entered into a settlement with the C.B.A. union to the effect that due to the losses sustained by respondent No.1 the services of certain employees be terminated and Thekadari Nizam be started. It was undertaken by respondent No.l that the contractor would give preference to the old workers of the factory.

3. The point on which the impugned order has been attacked is that the workers who have been affected by the permission‑ given by the learned lower Court were not impleaded as party and that the C.B.A. could not be made party. This is not denied that Labour Union Fateh Textile Industries is a C.B.A. The petitioner did not apply to the learned lower Court for being impleaded as a party. The other workers too who may have been adversely affected by the impugned order did not come forward with such a prayer. The learned lower Court has passed the impugned order on the consenting reply statement made by the C.B.A. Since no objection was taken before the learned lower Court that the workers who were to be terminated were necessary parties, such a question did not come under the consideration of the said Court. The question whether C.B.A. could be made party or not and whether the workers are bound by the permission given by the learned lower Court cannot be answered in the revision as it was not raised before the Labour Court and as the petitioners have no right to come to this Court. Appeal is a statutory right but since the impugned order is not appealable, the only remedy for the petitioners or any other person who feels that he has been adversely affected by the impugned order, was to seek judicial remedy. Since consenting statement was made before the learned lower Court and no other objection was raised, the impugned order cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. Needless to say that Standing Order 11‑A of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1958 authorises the Labour Courts to refuse or give permission fir the termination of services of more than 50% workers. The learned counsel for the petitioners has cited 1960 P L C 559 and 1977 P L C 718 on the point that the party who is to be adversely affected by the order is a necessary party. There is no cavil about this proposition but the question raised in the revision petition, which was not before the learned lower Court, is whether the C.B.A. was the necessary or proper party in place of the workers. It has been urged on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has already made application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to the learned lower Court on the point.

4. As a result, the revision is filed. A.E.15101Lb.P Revision dismissed.