1. ' AFTAB AHMED GORAR, J.--- By this single order I propose to dispose of abovesaid four.
2. Constitutional Petitions as the facts as well as law involved in all the petitions are almost same.
3. 'Brief facts of the case as disclosed in the memo. of petitions, are that the petitioners in all the three petitions being employed as permanent workmen with respondent No,2 were subjected to illegal deductions from their wages, as such they approached respondent No,1 who vide order dated 21- 12-2010 passed in the case of petitioner in C.P. No,S-885 of 2011 and dated 24-1-2011 passed in the case of other three petitioners in A C.Ps. Nos.S-886, 887 and 888 of 2011 allowed the claim of the petitioners and respondent No,2 was directed to make payment within a period of 30 days.
4. However, respondent No,2 neither complied with the said order nor availed the statutory remedy of appeal. Instead of filing appeal, respondent No,2 after about 6 months moved an application for review of the abovesaid order passed by respondent No,
1. The petitioners in all the four petitions contested the said review application and filed their respective counter affidavits. However, vide impugned order respondent No,1 in a slipshod and hasty manner ordered for restoration of the case to its original position i,e, cross-examination of the petitioner on the ground that due to frequent shifting of court from Jummni Arcade to Barrack No,98 and then to Defence Phase-II Ext. no notice was issued to respondent No,2 in each case. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners in the present petitions.
5. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that respondent No,2 passed the impugned order in a slipshod and hasty manner which is otherwise without jurisdiction and ab intio void order, that respondent. No,2 failed to avail the statutory remedy of appeal, hence the order whereby claim of the petitioners was allowed attained finality and cannot be reopened. He further argued that, without prejudice to his legal submissions, even otherwise the review application was hopelessly time-barred. According to him, the impugned order is a non-speaking order wherein respondent No,1 has failed to discuss the vital issue of jurisdiction as to whether power of review was conferred upon him or not. He prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and restoration of earlier order.
6. He relied upon PLD 1986 Quetta 19, PLD 1970 SC 1, 2005 PLC 364 and 1991 PLC 758.
7. ' Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No,2 contended that the petition is not maintainable; that the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and norms of justice; that although there was frequent shifting of the trial court from one place to another but no notice was served upon respondent No,2, hence respondent No,2 was condemned unheard while passing the earlier order, as such the impugned order is just and proper. He further argued that under section 21 of the General Clauses Act an authority has the power to recall or review its earlier order. He prayed for dismissal of the petitions. He relied upon 2002 PLC (C.S.) 696, PLD 2004 SC 416, PLD 19991 Karachi 477, PLD 1970 SC 1, 1991 CLC 7589, 1996 SCMR 336, 1997 SCMR 926, PLD 1988 Peshawar 33 and 2004 SCMR 497.
8. ' I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
9. 'On a bare perusal of the record it appears that the claim of the petitioners was allowed by respondent No,1 vide his earlier order wherein he has discussed all the relevant points in detail and has also taken into consideration the view point of the respondent No,2 as well and after thorough discussion passed the impugned order. It will be appropriate to quote certain observations from the said order:--- "Applicant and his witness proved the case through their evidence and respondent failed badly to rebut the claim of applicant and applicant was dragged in fruitless litigation about 20 years and it was great excess with applicant and he was attending his case regularly from the very beginning till up to date...."
10. ' However, after about 6 months respondent No,1 in a slipshod and hasty manner reviewed his own order although there is no such provision under the labour laws which authorizes him to do so and that too in such slipshod and hasty manner. What is provided under the law is the remedy of a statutory appeal which respondent No,2 failed to avail and instead he filed a review application under a provision which, at all, was not applicable under the law for filing such review application.
11. From the bare perusal of the impugned order it appears that the same is lacking reasons and apparently is a non-speaking order which could not be sustained under the law. In the case reported in PLD 1986 Quetta 19 it was held as under:--- "The question is, whether the Assistant Commissioner after having disposed of the case by his order dated 1st January, 1983 could have reconstituted a Tribunal and could have referred the dispute to it? There is no such power vested in the Assistant Commissioner under Ordinance 1 of 1968. Once a case is finally disposed of rightly or wrongly by an Assistant Commissioner, exercising the powers of Deputy Commissioner under Ordinance 1 of 1968, the proper remedy of an aggrieved party is to file an appeal under the said Ordinance or other competent legal proceedings against the final order, but such an order cannot be nullified by him."
12. 'Respondent No,2 did not avail the remedy of filing appeal as provided under the law, as such the order passed by respondent No,1 whereby claim of the petitioners was allowed attained finality and the same cannot be reopened or reviewed.
13. ' So far as the contention that due to frequent shifting of the court from one place to another, notice should have been issued to respondent No,2 which was not done as such the respondent was condemned unheard is concerned, suffice it to say that respondent had engaged a counsel who had appeared on various dates on behalf of respondent No,2, as such now it does not lie in their mouth to take a stand that notice should have been issued because once a counsel is engaged, it is his responsibility to pursue the case properly. Moreover, it was not a case of transfer from one court to another but it was merely a shifting and it was the duty of respondent No,2 as well as their counsel to watch the proceedings with care.
14. ' The upshot of above discussion is that the petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside and the earlier order passed by respondent No,1 granting the claims of the petitioners is restored. Respondent No,2 is directed to make payments as ordered earlier to the petitioners within a fortnight.