' The revision captioned above emerges from the order, dated 23rd August, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Lahore at Ferozewala, whereby the application of the petitioner for the restoration of their grievance petition was dismissed.
2. The ground on which the grievance petition was dismissed was that neither Talbana' nor registration envelop was supplied for sending notice to the opposite party. The learned lower Court has refused to restore the petition on the ground that the order right or wrong should have been complied with and non-compliance justified the dismissal of e grievance petition. The other ground is that the Labour Courts have powers to review their orders and decisions. In labour case no albana' and registration envelop are required. Notice to the opposite arty is issued by using service-stamps. So the petitioners did not commit any fault for which an order dismissing the petition may have been lied for. The order of dismissal is, therefore, not sustainable and the grievance petition should have been restored.
3. The application of the petitioners was not for recalling the order of dismissal of the grievance petition, but was for its restoration. If the grievance petition had been restored, the order would not have amounted reviewing the previous order. The decision of this Court referred to by the learned lower Court was not on the point of restoration of the grievance petition. In that case even the petition for restoration had en dismissed in default and the prayer was to restore that petition. The w is different in respect of the restoration of an application for the restoration of a grievance petition.
4. As a result of what has been said above, the revision is accepted parted and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court grievance petition of the petitioner is directed to be