1989 PLP 360 (PLC)

Mahmood A.Ghani and Virarat Hussain Zaidi for the Applicants. Suleman Habibullah for Respondent. This is a suo motu revision application under section 38(3‑A) of I.R.O., 1969, against a common impugned order, dated 4‑4‑1988, passed by the Sind Labour Court No.V at Karachi, who had dismissed the legal objections raised by the applicants establishment against the maintainability of the grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, fixed by the respondents workmen.

2. Brief facts of the case were that the respondents claimed to be the permanent employees of the applicants establishment and being aggrieved against their alleged dismissal from service, all the respondent workmen had preferred their respective grievance petitions separately under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, before the learned Labour Court. During the proceedings of these petitions, the applicants establishment had submitted legal objections against the maintainability of the petitions before the learned Labour Court on the main and sole ground that as all the respondent workmen had already challenged the maintainability of the charge‑sheets and their dismissal orders before the learned National Industrial Relations Commission under section 53(1‑A), I.R.O. 1969, praying therein that the learned N.I.R.C. should not only punish the management for unfair labour practice, but, should also award any other relief which the N.I.R.C. was competent to grant. It was also contended before the learned Labour Court by the applicants management that in terms of Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, the Commission, while dealing with the cases based on allegations of unfair labour practice, had to follow the procedure as laid down under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969 and under section 32(1) the Commission was also empowered to grant the relief of reinstatement of the worker while deciding a case under section 53(1‑A) read with section 15(d) and (e) of I.R.O. 1969. In view of these submissions, it was prayed by the applicants management that their legal objections should be sustained by the learned Labour Court and the grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, filed by the respondent workmen be dismissed. On the other hand the respondent workmen had resisted these legal objections on the ground that a case filed before the learned N.I.R.C. was a criminal complaint under section 53(1‑A) read with section 15(d)(e) of I.R.O. 1969, wherein it was prayed that the Managing Director of the applicants establishment be proceeded with and punished mainly for unfair labour practice, while the grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, before the learned Labour Court were exclusively for their reinstatement in service. It was also the case of the respondent workmen that though the facts in both these different proceedings were same and similar, yet, they had no relevancy with each other as in the proceedings before the learned National Industrial Relations Commission, there was no prayer for 'reinstatement', therefore, it was pleaded by the respondent workmen that the learned Labour Court should dismiss the legal objections of the applicants management and then, should proceed with the grievance petitions, on merit.

3. The learned Labour Court, after considering all aspects of the cases and hearing both the parties on the legal objections, had passed the common impugned order, hence, the present suo moto revision application under section 38(3‑a) of I.R O. 1969, filed by the applicants establishment.

4. On 28‑7‑1988, I have heard the arguments, at length, submitted by Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned Advocate for the applicants management and Mr. Suleman Habibullah, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent workmen and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. Thereafter, exclusively at the request of Mr. Mahmood A.Ghani, the learned Advocate for the applicants management, the case was adjourned for today for filing of the written arguments by both the parties. Today, Mr. Vazarat Hussain Zaidi. Advocate, the Junior of Mr. Mahmood A.Ghani is present and he has submitted only two photostat copies of the reported case and he has not filed his written arguments, while, on the other hand, the respondent workmen are present, in person, and they had submitted their written arguments. I have also carefully perused the written arguments on behalf of the respondent workmen and the photostat copies of the reported cases, as had been submitted by the applicants establishment. At the very outset, I would hold that the impugned order is well reasoned and based on full appreciation of Law. I find nothing wrong with it to interfere and I am of the view that the present proceedings under section 38(3‑a), I.R.O. 1969, are nothing, but only due to sick‑advice, these are delaying tactics by an employer, not only to harass a poor worker, but, also to deprive him of from his legitimate legal right to seek justice and redressal of his grievance by invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. It is a settled principle of Law that "justice is delayed means justice is' denied". If, a worker has a genuine grievance, then, he has a right to get it redressed in a proper and legal manner, as had been guaranteed to him under the Labour Law. If an employer thinks that his action against a worker was lawful and justified, then: he should resist such a litigation on merit in a proper way, instead of mainly taking a shelter of any legality and/or illegality. The present case is based quite on different facts and circumstances, than that of the reported cases as had been relied upon by the applicants establishment. I have carefully perused two reported cases, as had been relied upon by the applicants management, namely, (I) 1988 P L C 333 in the case of Irshad Ahmad and 4 others v. Messrs General Tyre & Rubber Company of Pak. Ltd., Karachi and (2) 1966 P L C at page 268 in the case of Natural Gas Fertilizer Factory, W.P. I.D.C. Multan v. Natural Gas Fertilizer Factory Labour Union; and I am of the view that these reported authorities are irrelevant to the facts and circumstances of the present case and not at ail applicable, hence, they are distinguishable. I have also very carefully perused the photostat copy of a complaint filed by one of the present respondents, namely, Abdul Bari s/o Abdul Wahab, before the National Industrial Relations Commission and this copy had been filed by the applicants management itself alongwith their present suo moto revision application. Thus, from their own pleadings, the applicants management had miserably failed to establish their contention that the matter before the N.I.R.C. was for reinstatement in service. Nowhere it had been prayed by the respondents, as such. In view of the matter, I would hold that proceedings under section 53(1‑A , I.R.O. 1969 before the N.I.R.C. and the grievance petition under section 25‑A I.R.O. 1969 before the learned Labour Court are two independent and separate R proceedings, therefore, Regulation 32 could not operate in the present proceedings as a bar against grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969. However, ri was very correctly argued by Mr. Suleman Habibullah, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent workmen that the relief which was not prayed could not be granted by the Court itself and in support of his argument, he had referred me to a case law, reported in 1972 P L C

11. It has been very efficiently further argued by Mr. Suleman Habibullah the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent workmen that two remedies, Criminal as well as Civil, simultaneously by a worker under section 25‑A and section 53 read with section 15 of the LR.O, 1969 are two independent proceedings and could be availed of by a worker, and in support of this, he had relied upon a case reported in P L C 1975 page 783 and 791, wherein the Lahore High Court has held, as under:‑‑ Remedies provided by sections 25‑A and 53 simultaneously can be availed of at same time‑‑Workman can seek redress under section 25‑A but if same act constitutes an offence as well, he can approach Labour court under section 53 for punishing employer." Besides the above case law, Mr. Suleman Habibullah, the learned Advocate for the respondent workmen had also placed his reliance in support of his case, on P L D 1988 S C page 53, at pages 54, 55 and 66; P L C 1981 page 182 at page 183(B); 1981 P L C at pages 532 and 890; and 1982 P L C at page

424. In view of the matter, I would hold that the applicants management have no case, therefore, the learned Labour Court has passed a correct and lawful impugned order.

5. For the reasons discussed by me above, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order and would maintain the same. The present suo motu revision application under section 38(3‑a) I.R.O. 1969, tiled by the applicants management is accordingly dismissed. The learned Labour Court is directed to immediately proceed with and decide, on merits as per Law, all the grievance petitions under section 25‑A, I.R.O., 1969 filed by the respondent workmen. The R&Ps be sent to the concerned Labour Court, at once. 1307/Lb.S??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.