1984 PLP 1427 (PLC(CS))

(c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

‑‑ S. 38(3)‑Determining of appeal‑Labour Appellate Tribunal- Held, only for purpose of determining an appeal can exercise same powers as empowered upon Labour Court by Ordinance. (d) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑

‑‑-S. 38(3)‑Labour Appellate Tribunal‑Power of revision‑Held, given to extent of satisfying correctness, legality or propriety of orders passed by Labour Court within its jurisdiction. Mian Muhammad Yasin for Appellant. Date of hearing: 3rd February, 1982. As facts and law involved in the revisions captioned above are common and the miscellaneous petitions given in these are being disposed of together through this single judgment. Umar Hayat and 111 others brought a grievance petition under section 25‑A before Labour Court No. 3, Ferozwala. Likewise Gulzar and 65 others had brought grievance petition under section 25‑A in the abovementioned Court. Both the grievance petitions were dismissed in default on lst January, 1978 as none had appeared on behalf of the workers. On application for restoration both of the cases were restored by order dated 26th February, 1978. Dawood Hercules Chemical challenged the order of restoration in this Tribunal by two different revisions. On the statement of Muhammad Ashraf or Umar Hayat the revision QSA‑245/78 was accepted setting aside the order of the lower Court dated 26th February, 1978 and the parties directed to appear before the lower Court on 15th January, 1980. Likewise Revision No. WSA‑244/ 78 was on the statement of Muhammad Ashraf or Abdul Majid accepted setting aside the order of the lower Court dated 26th February, 1978 and the parties directed to appear before the lower Court on 13th January, 1980, Miscellaneous petitions were given in the two revisions for setting aside the order, dated 26th February, 1978. My learned predecessor who passed the order, dated 26th February, 1978 entertained the said miscel laneous petitions. I am afraid the said petitions cannot be accepted as in reality they are for reviewing the order dated 7th January, 1980. This Tribunal has no power of review. The powers of this Tribunal are enumerated in section 38 in‑which there is no provision of review. This is a special Tribunal created and empowered by a special Law. Labour Courts are, for the purposes of determining an industrial dispute, to be deemed to a civil Court and have same powers as are vested in a civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure (section 36(2) and this Tribunal only for the purpose of determining an appeal case exercise same powers as empowered upon Labour Courts by I. R. O. (section 38(3) I. R. O.). As soon as an C appeal decided by Tribunal becomes functus officio. So far revisions are concerned powers conferred on Labour Courts, have been given to this Tribunal. Revisional powers have been given under section 38(3).

1. R. O. only to satisfy as to the correctness, legality or propriety of the D orders passed by the Labour Courts within its jurisdiction. Section 38(3‑a) does not confer any power of review. So the impugned order of this Tribunal, dated 7th January, 1980 cannot be set aside, reversed or modified. It appears that my learned predecessor was under the wrong impression while passing order, dated 7th January, 1980 that the Labour Courts had dismissed the restoration applications and they had challenged the orders before this Tribunal was not the proper forum to challenge the orders. The workman on whose statement the revisions were accepted was not represented by any counsel on the said date and the workman concerned being a layman did not realise the effect of the acceptance of the revisions. Mr. H. R. Haider, Advocate was present for the employer but he too did not apprise of the real situation to my learned predecessor. The workman no doubt have suffered due to the bona fide mistake of the Court but I am unable to redress the wrong, and constrained to dismiss the miscellaneous applications. M. Y. M. Application dismissed.