' JUSTICE (R.) ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA (CHAIRMAN)---In all the above captioned twelve appeals, common question of facts and law are involved; they are therefore being disposed of through this single judgment.
2. The facts are alleged, in brief, are that these appellants were confirmed low paid employees of the Bank of Punjab and were appointed against different posts like Tea Boy, Messenger, and Drivers. They performed their duties to the satisfaction of the bank management and there was no complaint against them about their work and conduct. They claimed that in view of the nature of their duties they were workmen and were entitled to form a trade union under section 3 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 read with Article 17 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and also to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
3. The appellants decided to form a trade union with the name and style of "Bank of Punjab Workers' Union". They were elected as Executive Members of the Union. The union applied for its registration on 30-6-2004 to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Punjab, Lahore after fulfilling the legal requirements. They also notified this fact to the bank authorities with complete list of office-bearers and active members of the proposed union.
4. Realizing that this development would not easily be digested by the bank authorities who enjoyed an enviable position being bank officials / Government Officers. The appellants with a view to forestall imminent adverse action of the bank a joint grievance petition was filed in the Punjab Labour Court No,1, Lahore with an application for the grant of temporary injunction against the expected victimization i.e, to transfer them to the far flung areas and ultimately removal from service during the pendency of the registration of the Union.
5. The learned Labour Court passed an order maintaining status quo in the presence of the counsel for the bank on 3-7-2004. The appellants continued to perform duties on their respective assignments. The bank however allegedly passed ante dated transfer orders with the date shown as 29-6-2004 from Lahore to Quetta, Muzaffarabad, Rahim Yar Khan and Karachi etc. The Registration application was thrown away on technical grounds on 12-7-2004. Consequently the case was also dismissed. To cap it all, the bank dismissed all the defiant appellants on 17-7-2004 on the main charge that they did not report to, the places of their transfers.
6. It has been claimed that all this was done arbitrarily, without issuing any charge sheet, without an enquiry, and without any show cause notice. The entire ,process adopted by the bank was malafide illegal, coram non judice and repugnant to the provisions of section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. This was resisted by the respondent bank on a number of preliminary objections, like lack of jurisdiction, limitation and being not workmen and not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court. On merits the petitions were vigorously defended.
7. The petitions were however dismissed by a non speaking order. The learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, remanded the case with consent of the parties for fresh decision through a speaking order vide order dated 7-1-2005. The matter was again taken up by the learned Punjab Labour Court No,1, and after hearing arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition was again dismissed by means of impugned order dated 24-2-2007.
8. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
9. Before proceeding further it appears appropriate to reproduce the concluding paras of the judgment:-- "(8) The counsel for the petitioner has brought the fact of the accident (sic) which is a matter the detail of which is already brought on the record by me. The fact is that the petitioner is not competent in its present form and the petition is not maintainable for not impleading necessary parties. No victimization has been made by the Bank authorities. The detailed facts given on the record by the Bank authorities in their reply are more than enough to prove the fact that the case is also not maintainable as to its truthness. Documents brought by them make it further clear that the question of maintainability and the jurisdiction does not prove. It has also been made clear that the Bank authorities have given their record more conclusion and it is for the petitioner to have made it justified that they were debarred to make a case of detailed analysis to their favour if so needed.
(9) For the reasons so recorded I am of this opinion that the petitioner has not been able to bring his case on record which is not competent and maintainable before this court and the same stands dismissed."
10. I have gone through the judgment and the concluding paragraphs with particularity not once but thrice and could not make out any head and tail out of it. Although the learned Judge has described that for the reasons so recorded he was of the opinion that petitioner has not been able to bring his case on record which is not competent and maintainable before this court and the same stands dismissed. The last line shows that the petition has been dismissed. No ground and reasons whatsoever have been given in support of the conclusion that why the learned Judge was inclined to dismiss the grievance petition.
11. Law requires that where, by or under any enactment a power to make any order or give any direction is conferred on any authority, office or person such power shall be exercised reasonably, fairly, justly and for the advancement of the purpose of the enactment. The law also requires the Authority, Office or person making any such order under the powers conferred by the law shall, so far as necessary or appropriate, give reasons for making the order as the case may be. Reference in this respect. May be made to section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The impugned order, therefore is again a non speaking order which leads one nowhere.
12. Learned counsel for the respondents however laid greater emphasis on the point that when the appeal was filed in the High Court by the appellant though it was indeed in time yet it became time-barred when the appellant failed to remove the objections raised by the office within the given period of three days and removed the same much later. Learned counsel for the respondent bank has seriously objected to the maintainability of this appeal which according to him had become grossly time barred. He has pointed out that this has been a consistent practice approved by the courts that the appeal if filed after removing of the objections beyond the prescribed time it will be taken to be time barred appeal. In support of this contention he has relied upon the following judgments:-
(1) 2009 SCM R 767 (Land Acquisition case) (2) 2009 SCM R 769 (Services Tribunal Act), (3) 1997 SCM R 1224 (Revision Petition in Land Acquisition Case), (4) 2006 SCM R 783 (Grievance notice after three years)
13. This appeal was under the Labour Laws and it had to be entertained and decided within the purview thereof. The rulings cited at serial Nos.1 to 3 supra were distinguishable on facts. In that none of them are in the context of the labour laws. The objections namely, insufficient stamp and court fee, want of signatures of the counsel, non-filing of the spare copies, non-citing of the provisions of law, non-submission of the photo copy of the identity card were totally unwarranted.
It appears that the objecting Officer was oblivious of the fact that the Labour Laws are special laws and the litigants under the laws were not at all required to affix any court fee or stamp on their petitions etc. Since decades. Reference in this connection may be made to section 36(4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, section 45(4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 and section 53(4) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008 which clearly envisage that no court fee shall be payable for filing exhibiting or recording any documents in any Labour Court. The objections raised at serial Nos.31, 32, and 33 were rather enigmatic. None of the objections raised by the office had any legal backing under the labour laws. This appeal was under the labour legislation.
Consequently, the objections could not be held to have any reflexes on the merits of the claim of the appellant and the appeal could not have been dubbed as time barred. As regards the ruling at No,4 above, the same was under the labour laws but suffered negligence of the worst magnitude because in that case the grievance notice which had to be served within 30 days was filed after three years. This ruling has equally no apt application here.
14. The learned counsel for the respondent bank appears to have become hyper-technical in laying increasing stress on this point and wanted to non-suit the appellants on this point which was clearly contrary to the spirit of Labour Laws. The scheme of labour laws is that while interpreting and applying these laws the courts are required to construe the law beneficially so as to advance the remedy and to suppress the mischief. Had these objections been referred to the court I am positive that this matter could have been resolved easily by the learned Judge of the High Court.
15. As pointed out above, the judgement is still non speaking and the appeals are accepted and the impugned orders are set aside. The case is remanded to the learned Labour Court for its decision in accordance with law with a clear order on the issues raised by the parties, Since this is an old case, the learned Labour Court is expected to dispose of it as expeditiously as possible. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.