RAZA ALI KHAN, J. Through this petition filed under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, following relief is prayed for: "It is, therefore, most respectfully and humbly pray and request that while accepting the writ petition the judgment of Labour Appellant Tribunal of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Circuit Mirpur A.K. dated 13.03.2014 may please by reversed and review petition filed by petitioners and proforma non-petitioners may please be accepted and Labour Appellant Tribunal may please be directed to dispose off the appeal of non-petitioner No.1 Filed on 29.06.1999 in the light of latest judgments of Supreme Court of Pakistan through which section 2-A has been strike down in accordance with the law applicable at the relevant time by considering the material facts of judgment of Labour Court dated 10.05.1999."
Precise facts of the case are that Zulfiqar Ali Malik, Predecessor of petitioners herein, was serving as Officer Grade-III in HBL. He was suspended by the Bank on various allegation vide order dated 25.06.1991 and was charge sheeted on 04.07.1991. He filed petition before Labour Court Mirpur against the said orders on 30.07.1991. During pendency of his petition he was dismissed from service vide order dated 17.11.1992. He challenge his dismissal order before the Labour Court Mirpur which was accepted vide order dated 10.05.1999.
Against the said order, an appeal was filed by Zonal Chief HBL before Labour Appellate Tribunal which was accepted vide order dated 19.02.2001. The writ petition filed before this Court against the order dated 19.02.2001 was dismissed on 13.03.2004. Petition for leave to appeal before the apex Court was dismissed on 02.07.2004. It was contended that in light of script dated 08.07.2006, addressed by Registrar Appellate Service Tribunal to Zulfiqar Ali Malik, the petitioners filed a review petition before the Labour Appellate Tribunal which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 13-3-2014, hence, the captioned writ petition.
The learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners reiterated the ground taken in the writ petition and submitted that the Court below failed to consider the impact of letter dated 08.07.2006 addressed by Registrar Federal Service Tribunal to Zulfiqar Ali Malik, predecessor of petitioners. The learned Advocate further argued that in view of rule of law laid down in 2011 SCMR 1912 = 2012 PLC (C.S.) 885 the Labour Appellate Tribunal was competent to adjudicate upon the matter. He submitted that from the date of knowledge the review petition was within limitation but the Tribunal failed to apply judicial mind and illegally dismissed the review petition.
The learned counsel for the respondents argued that under the Industrial Regulations Ordinance, 1974 (hereinafter to be referred as IRO) no right of review petition is provided and where right of review is not provided by the Statute, the review petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel further argued that even otherwise review was filed after lapse of 5 years. The learned counsel submitted that the matter has already been finalized up to the Supreme Court, therefore, the closed and past litigation cannot be re-opened. The learned Advocate in support of his submissions placed reliance on following case law:-
1. 2011 SCMR 8;
2. 2001 SCMR 912;
3. PLD 1970 SC 1;
4. 1974 PLC 225;
5. 2007 PLC 64; I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case as well as case law referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents.
A perusal of the record reveals that the Zulfiqar Ali Malik, predecessor of petitioners, herein, was dismissed from service vide order dated 17.11.1992. He challenged his dismissal order before the Labour Court, Mirpur through grievance petition, which was accepted vide order dated 10.05.1999. The Zonal Chief HBL challenged the judgment passed by Labour Court before the Labour Appellate Tribunal through appeal, which was accepted vide order dated 19.02.2001. Zulfiqar Ali Malik, filed writ petition before this Court and challenged the order dated 19.02.2001. This Court after hearing the parties dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 13.03.2004. Appeal filed by Zulfiqar Ali Malik before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dismissed on 02.07.2004. The review petition filed before the apex Court was also dismissed on 11.02.2009.
A perusal of the record reveals that the petitioners filed review petition against the order dated 19.02.2001 on 03.08.2006 before the Labour Appellate Tribunal Azad Jammu and Kashmir, after the lapse of more than 5 years. The petitioners also filed review petition before the apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir on 04.08.2006 for review of the judgment dated 02.07.2004. The apex Court dismissed the review petition on the ground of limitation as well as on its merits. The Labour Appellate Tribunal also dismissed the review petition filed by petitioners through the impugned order dated 13.03.2014 on the ground that as the matter has been finalized up to the Supreme Court, therefore, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to re-open the matter and on the point of limitation as well. I am of the view that the decision of the Tribunal is quite in accordance with law because a matter which has been decided up to the Supreme Court, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to re- open the same on a review petition which has been filed after the lapse of more than 5 years.
Moreover, the IRO does not provide a right of review petition and it is well settled principle of law that if a right of review is not provided by a statute the review cannot be filed. In this regard I may refer to case titled Hussain Bakhsh v. Settlement Commissioner, Rawalpindi and others (PLD 1970 SC 1) referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents, wherein it has been observed as under:- "The right of claim review of any decision of a Court of law, like the right to appeal, is a substantive right and not a mere matter of procedure. An appeal, as observed by Branwell, L.J., in the case of Sandback Charity Trustees v. North Staffordshire Railway Co. (i) ------ "does not exist in the nature of things; a right to appeal from any decision of any Tribunal must be given by express enactment."
This is equally true in case of review, because both appeal and review, though they differ in scope, are substantive rights. As such, neither of them is available unless it has been conferred by law."
As no right of review petition is provided by IRO, hence, the review petition filed by petitioners was barred by law, hence, has rightly been dismissed by the Tribunal through the impugned judgment, which is liable to be maintained.
In view of above finding no substance in this petition, it is hereby dismissed.