1996 PLP 133 (PLC)

Laws Cited

Representation

• ----Ss. 25-A &. 37(3)---Grievance petition---Dismissal---Order rejecting grievance petition filed by employees against their dismissal from service, had been challenged by them in appeal before Tribunal---Nobody appeared on behalf of employer Mills on date of hearing and it was not possible to hear both parties or record any further evidence when one of the parties did not appear to be interested in case any longer---Case, in circumstances, was remanded to Labour Court for a fresh trial de novo in which all parties should participate.
• Raja Shamsuz Zaman for Appellants.
• Nemo for Respondents.
• The five appellants Muhammad Ayub, Muhammad Siddique, Rahim Khan, Hussain Bahadur and Sakhawat Hussain were permanent workers of Farooq Textile Mills. They took part in union activities and they were, therefore, dismissed from service. They filed their grievance petitions before the Fourth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi for re‑instatement and back benefits. On 11‑8‑1987 Labour Court directed temporary re‑instatement of the appellants but ordered fresh enquiry and personal hearing. The appellants preferred appeal to the Labour Appellate Tribunal against the decision of the Labour Court. The learned Tribunal set aside the order of the Labour Court and dismissed all the five grievance petitions of the appellants. As the entire order of Labour Court had not been challenged, the appellants preferred Constitution petition in the High Court against order of this Tribunal. The order of the Tribunal due to the legal defect, was set aside by the High Court vide its order dated 1‑4‑1992 and the case was remanded to the Labour Appellate Tribunal for a fresh decision. After this order of the High Court, four appellants namely Muhammad Ayub, Sakhawat Hussain, Muhammad Siddique and Rahim Khan approached the management for their re instatement in service in accordance with the order of the Labour Court dated 11‑8‑1987 and on refusal they filed second grievance petitions before the Labour Court. One of the appellants had not preferred this second grievance petition. The learned Labour Court vide its order dated 8‑3‑1993 dismissed all the grievance petitions. Against this order of the Labour Court, four appellants preferred another appeal in this Tribunal. On this date of hearing, respondent Muhammad Farooq Textile Mills and their Advocate are absent. It is not possible to hear both the parties or record any further evidence when one of the parties namely Muhammad Farooq Textile Mills do not appear to be inters.3ted in the case any longer. Therefore, the only alternative is to remand the case of these five appellants to the Labour Court for a fresh trial de novo in which all the parties should participate. The learned Labour Court may then decide all the grievance petitions by a consolidated order. Even if any party has not preferred an appeal, the inclusion of that party may be considered as if by suo motu revision.

Judgment & Decree