2004 PLP 36 (PLC)

Date of hearing: 7th November, 2003. This appeal is filed under section 48(1) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 against the order dated 22-3-2003, passed by the Presiding Office, Labour Court VI, Hyderabad in Application bearing No.55 of 2002, which was filed by the applicant/respondent, namely, Messrs Habib Bank Limited Workers Union Hyderabad Zone, whereby the Labour Court recorded finding "No opportunity was given to the petitioner or even other unions which were admittedly working as CBA for even a particular respective area which was included in the region for which the respondent No.2 was given certificate of registration. Thus the petitioners were condemned unheard and principle of natural justice was vitiated, therefore, action of respondent No.1 to register the respondent No.2 union for entire Hyderabad region is illegal and against the principle of natural justice. I, therefore, allow this petition as prayed, The Registrar is directed to call the objections of all the unions working in the region into the matter and thereafter pass orders, if any." Heard Mr. Abdul Ghani' Khan for the appellant, Mr. Mehmood Hussain Siddiqui for respondent No. 1 and Mr. Masood A. Noorarii, learned Additional A.G. for respondent No.3 viz Registrar of Trade Union, Hyderabad, also perused R&P of this appeal file and that of the learned Labour Court bearing Case No.55 of 2002. Learned counsel for the appellant has-mainly assailed the order impugned herein on the ground that the stage of proceedings before the learned Labour Court was to hear the interlocutory applications and to pass orders thereon, whereas through the impugned order the entire application under section 34 of then Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 stands decided, in flagrant violation of the procedure prescribed under section 36 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the learned Labour Court is duty bound to frame the issues on such pleadings filed by the parties, and then to call upon them to adduce the evidence in support of their respective pleadings, whereafter the Labour Court shall hear the parties on the pleadings and the evidence so produced and filed by the parties, and then to pronounce the orders/judgment in the case: it is further argued that the learned Labour Court has necessarily to first pass legal order on all the interlocutory applications which may be filed and may be pending in the case before it and that without first passing orders/deciding such application, if the entire case is decided by it that too without affording opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective pleadings, such an order/judgment stands vitiated and is to be taken to be illegal. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 argued that the impugned order has been acted upon by the appellant and, therefore, they are debarred from raising any grievance against the impugned order which is now to be taken to be final and no appeal lies against the same. Learned Additional Advocate-General has supported this appeal and has argued that the impugned order passed by the Presiding Judge of the learned Labour Court is absolutely illegal, passed in flagrant violation of section 36 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which manadatorily directs that after the Labour Court casts issues on the pleadings of the parties, it has necessarily to call upon them to adduce evidence in support of their respective pleadings, and then to hear parties before passing orders/judgment in the case. Perusal of the record and proceedings of the lower Court clearly indicates that the diary dated 5-8-2002 was recorded so as to fix the case for hearing the arguments on "stay application" on the next date of hearing viz.; 27-8-2002, neither any order was passed on such stay application nor any reason is shown as to why the Presiding Judge of Labour Court deemed it necessary not to allow the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective pleadings; the subsequent diaries maintained in the case are very vague and do not give any clear picture inasmuch as in the diary .dated 23-9-2002 it was mentioned that the hearing was adjourned "for orders:, but again in the diary dated 2-10-2002 it was recorded that-hearing was adjourned to 16-10-2002 "for hearing"; thus the impugned order was passed by the Presiding Judge of the Labour Court without following prescribed procedure for deciding the application filed under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Under the circumstances, this appeal is allowed and impugned order is set-aside, the Case is remanded to the Labour Court VI, Hyderabad with a direction to first hear the parties on the interlocutory application, whereafter it should follow the procedure prescribed under section 36 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (as replaced by the new Ordinance) for the purpose of proceeding with applications filed under section 34 of the said Ordinance (as now replaced). The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on 20-11-2003. Needless to state that any action taken/orders passed by respondent No.3 viz. Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region on the basis of the impugned order (now set aside by virtue of passing of this judgment) do not carry any legal force therewith. S.A.K./H-119/K Appeal allowed.