' This purports to be an appeal under sub-section (3) of section 37, I. R.
0., challenging the decision given by the learned VIth Labour Court at Hyderabad on 5th February, 1980 allowing the grievance petition of workman Khalid Mehmood and directing his reinstatement in service with back benefits, and the order, made on 31st March, 1981 by the same learned Labour Court, though by the successor of the Presiding Officer, who had given the decision, dated 5th February, 1980 dismissing the application filed by the appellants herein for setting aside the decision of 5th February, 1980 and the ex parte order on the basis of which the said decision was given.
2. In order to appreciate the contention of Mr. P. M. Amer, who appeared for the appellants, it would appear to be necessary to state in brief the background and the facts which have led to the present appeal. It appears that on 25th April, 1979 the, respondent, Khalid Mehmood, preferred a grievance petition before the learned VIth Labour Court to the effect that he had been wrongly removed from service with effect from 5th January, 1979 and was not allowed to enter the Cotton Ginning Factory of the appellants and work therein and accordingly prayed for directions to be given to the appellants for reinstating him in service with back benefits. Several notices/summonses in respect of the said grievance petition were issued by the learned Labour Court to be served upon the appellants but the same appear to have not been served. On 2nd August, 1979 fresh summons/notice of the grievance petition was sent to the appellants through registered post A/D, for the hearing which was fixed for 18th August, 1979. On the latter date, as no intimation was received from the postal authorities in regard to the service or non-service of the summons/notice upon the appellants, an application was made by the respondent workman to the effect that the summons/notice to the appellants may be served through the bailiff. This application was granted by the learned Labour Court on the same date and the matter was fixed for hearing for 10th September, 1979. On the latter date, though the diary for this date wrongly shows the date, as 10th August, 1979, the learned Labour Court passed an order holding the service upon the appellants as good and satisfactory on the basis of the endorsement of the postal authorities in respect of the notice/summons issued on 2nd August, 1979 to the effect that the addressee had refused to accept the same. The learned Labour Court accordingly passed an ex parte order against the appellants and the matter was put off to 23rd September, 1979 for ex parte proof. Several hearings thereafter, took place but the appellants did not appear in Court nor was an application made for setting aside the ex parte orders. Ultimately on 28th January, 1980 the respondent, Khalid Mehmood filed his affidavit and supported the same by certain documents. On 5th February, 1980 the learned Labour Court passed an ing the grievance petition of Khalid Mehmood and directed the appellants to reinstate him with back benefits. The appellants filed an appeal to this Tribunal on 6th January, 1981 against the said decision but the appeal was withdrawn by them. Thereafter, on 6th February, 1981 an application was filed before the learned Labour Court for setting aside both the ex parte order as well as the decision dated 5th February, 1980 allowing the grievance petition of the respondent. The learned Labour Court by its order, dated 31st March, 1981 has dismissed the said application on the ground that the ex parte order was rightly passed on the basis of the endorsement of the postal authorities on the cover' containing the notice/summons for 18th August, 1979 to the appellants, and as regards the application for setting aside the decision of 5th February, 1980, it took the view that even if the appellants became aware of the decision in September, 1980 as claimed by them, then alia, there was undue delay in the filing of the application for setting aside the decision and, therefore, no good cause had been shown for setting aside the said decision.
3. This appeal is liable to be dismissed on more than one ground. In the first place, the appeal against the decision, dated 5th February, 1980 having been withdrawn by the appellants themselves, it is now not open to them to challenge the same again in appeal, especially as no permission was granted to them to re-file the appeal. Furthermore, an appeal to this Tribunal has to be filed within a period of 30 days from the date of impugned decision, but the present appeal has been filed on 2nd May, 1981 about 15 months after the decision. It is thus hopelessly time barred.
4. As regards the order of the learned Labour Court, dated 31st March, 1981 refusing to set aside either the ex parte order or the decision, dated 5th February, 1980 the said order is in the nature of an interlocutory order and is not a decision for the purposes of section 37(3) of I. R.
0. And accordingly is not appealable, as held by this Tribunal in the cases of Messrs Allwin Engineering Industries Ltd. v. Muhammad Sardar Khan and another (1) and Shafiullah v. Globe Textile Mills Ltd. Karachi (2).
5. Even on merits, there does not appear to be any good ground for interference with the order of the learned Labour Court, dated 31st March, 1981. It was sought to be contended by Mr. P. M. Amer that since on 18th August, 1979 the learned Labour Court had not held the service through the postal authorities on the appellants as good and satisfactory, and on the contrary had allowed the application of the respondent workman for service on the appellants through the bailiff, it was at least not appropriate for it to have subsequently, on 10th September, 1979 held the service on the appellants through postal authorities as good and satisfactory. This contention overlooks the fact that although the endorsement on the cover of the notice/summons, dated 2nd August, 1979 bears the endorsement, dated 18th August, 1979 to the effect that the appellants had refused to accept the notice/ summons, the cover was not before the learned Labour Court on 18th August, 1979 and it was received by it much later. It was also contended by Mr. P. M. Amer that the appellants' factory, being a seasonal factory, was closed, and consequently, there was no question of the letter being accepted by any one at the factory. The learned Labour Court has considered this contention and has rightly pointed out that though seasonal factors may be closed during the off season, it does not mean that it is abandoned and there is nobody in the factory to carry on the business. Obviously, even in a seasonal factory, there is some staff which is permanent. As such, the notice/summons sent to the appellants through post during the off season of the factory of the appellants could have been received by the personnel present and functioning at the factory during the off season.
6. It was finally contended by Mr. P. M. Amer that the summonses/ notices were sent to Ramchand whereas he had died as far back as 1921 and hence the notices/summonses sent to him were invalid. Again, this contention overlooks the fact that the notice/summons was not sent to Ramchand personally, but to the Manager, Ramchand Manjimal Cotton Ginners. It is well known that business by a Hindu Joint family is carried by the Manager in the name of the joint family and the Manager is responsible not only for the management but also for the running of the business.
The notice/summons to the Manager, Ramchand Manjimal Cotton Ginners, was thus a valid notice/summons. The learned Labour Court thus appears to have validly accepted the service of the notice/summons on the appellants as good and satisfactory.
7. For the reasons discussed by me above, I find no merit in this appeal and would dismiss the same in limine. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1980 PLC 814 (2) 1981 PLC 304 {{FOOT NOTE}}