' AJMAL MIAN, J.-This petition is directed against the order, dated 19-12-1977, passed by respondent No,.2.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the respondent No, 1 was working with the petitioner. His services were terminated on 27-2-1975, whereupon the respondent No, 1 filed an application bearing No, 280 of 1975 under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance in May, 1975 in the then IVth Junior Labour Court, Karachi. It seems that the respondent No, 1 also filed two criminal cases for the unfair labour practices before the N1RC bearing Nos. 74 of 1975 and 75 of 1975, in which the relief for re-instatement was also claimed. The above cases were transferred to the Court of 3rd Labour Court, Karachi, and eventually were dismissed on. 23-10-1975.
It further seems that after amendment in the Labour Law by Ordinance XXVI of 1975 which came into force w. e. f. 23-12-1975, the aforesaid application under section 25-A of the I. R.
0. Then pending in the, then 1Vth Junior Labour Court was transferred to the Vth Senior Labour Court, Karachi, as by the above, amendment the Junior Labour Courts were abolished. It seems that the notice for the above transfer was issued for 17-3-1976. According to the bailiff's report the notice was tendered at respondent No, l's house which was delivered to respondent No,'s 1 mother, as admittedly the respondent No, 1 was out of country as he had gone for Haj. However, on 17-3- 1976, respondent No, l's above application was dismissed in default. After that on 24-3-1976, respondent No, l's brother acting as the attorney filed an application for the restoration of the above application under section 25-A of the I. R. O., but this restoration application was also dismissed for non-prosecution on 12-4-1975. Against the above order an appeal bearing No, KAR 70 of 1976 was filed in the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal which, was dismissed on 14-10-1976 on the ground that no appeal was competent against the above order. Thereupon, the respondent NO 1 filed Constitutional Petition No, D-214 of 1977, which was withdrawn on 1-6-1977, on. The ground that respondent No, 1 wanted to move the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 38(3-a) of the I.
R.
0. Which was enacted by Ordinance IX of 1977. The above aprlication was allowed by the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order dated 19-12-1977. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above order has filed the present petition.
' In support of the above petition Mr. Iqbal Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged as follows:-
(i) That respondent No, l's above revision under section 38(3-a) of the I. R. O. Was misconceived as no right to file a revision was conferred.
(ii) That since the right to file revision is a substantial right and not procedural, the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal could not have treated it as a procedural matter.
(iii) That even if it is to be held that subsection (3-a) of section 38 of the 1. R. O. Was merely procedural, in that event, also this revision could not have taken away the vested right.
' On the other hand, Mr. Malik Muhammad Saeed, learned counsel for respondent No, 1, has urged that though respondent No, 1 had no right to file revision but since the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal has exercised the suo mow revisional powers though at the behest of respondent No, 1, it cannot be said that the impugned order is without jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its Writ jurisdiction.
4. Mr. Syed Iqbal Ahmad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in furtherance of his first contention has cited the following cases:-
(i) Messrs Janat Textile Mills Limited v. Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal PLD 1979 Kar. 725 in which a Division Bench of this Court dismissed a writ petition filed by petitioner invoking section 38(3-a) of the I. R.
0. As a matter of right. It was held by the above Division Bench that a party cannot invoke the above provision as a matter of right since no such right has been conferred by subsection (3-a) of section 38 of the I. R.
0. It was further held that refusal of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal to entertain the revision of the petitioner was warranted by law.
(ii) Abdul Majid Shida v. Mst. Noor Jahan and another PLD 1967 SC 221 in which inter alia it was held that the power of the superintendence given to the Chief Settlement Commissioner under, section 20 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, cannot be invoked as authority for the prescription of a period of limitation for revision petition and that the Chief Settlement Commissioner was competent even to entertain the petition after the expiry of the period prescribed by him.
(iii) Fateh All Chemical Mehnatkash Union v. Registrar Trade Unions Sind and 2 others PLC 1980, 801 in which the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal has held that no party has a right to demand exercise of suo maw revisional powers under section 38(3-a) of the I. R.
0.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Malik Muhammad Saeed, the learned counsel for respondent No, 1, has referred to the following cases:-
(i) Divisional Manager, Sind Road Transport Corporation v. Muhammad Yousuf 1982, PLC 292 in which the learned Chairman of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal held that no party has of right can invoke the suo mow revisional jurisdiction of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 38(3-a) of the I. R.
0. However, the tribunal can act on an information received from any source including a party.
(ii) Muhammad Saddique Rafi and others v. Messrs Sami Pharmaceutical Limited and another 1982 PLC 424 in which the then learned Chairman of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal Mr. Justice (Retd.) Z. A. Channa referred to his earlier judgment given by him while sitting as a member of a Division Bench of this Court reported in the aforesaid PLD 1979 Kar. 725, held that the above provision does not debar the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal from exercising suo motu revisional powers even on an application received from a party.
6. We are inclined to agree with Mr. Syed Iqbal Ahmed that a part cannot file a revision under section 38(3-a) of the 1. R.
0. As a matter o right and therefore, if the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal would have dismissed the respondent No, l's above application under the above provision as misconceived, he would have no cause of action for agitating the above question through a Constitutional Petition. However, the question in issue is, whether the Tribunal having jurisdiction to exercis suo motu revisional power has exercised the said powers though upon an application filed by a party can be said to have acted without jurisdiction. We are also inclined to hold that the learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal cannot entertain a revision application under section 38(3-a) o the I. R.
0. As a matter of course but at the same time we are of the view that if the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal on receipt of information even from a party through an application comes to the conclusion that case for exercise of suo mow revisional power has been made out and that it would foster the cause of justice instead of resulting in miscarriage of justice, it can exercise the suo motu power. We cannot read an restriction on the power of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal of the nature which has been canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal in the instant case has found as a matter of fact that the dismissal order on the respondent No, l's application under section 25-A of the L R.
0. And subsequent restoration application were not justified. After having held that, it exercised the power vested in it In our view, no exception can be taken to the exercise of the aforesaid power.
7. As regards the other submissions of Mr. S. Iqbal Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, in our view it is not necessary to deal with the same in view of our finding on the above first contention. The petition, is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.