' In the revision captioned above four orders of the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,8, Bahawalpur have been challenged. On account of an alleged misconduct the respondent was charge-sheeted and after completing the legal formalities of holding enquiry etc., an application under section 47(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was filed. It was vide order dated 21-4-82 accepted ex parte. The respondent was in pursuant to the said order dismissed. He made an application for setting aside the ex parte decision. The petition was vide order dated 26-9-1982 accepted and the ex parte decision was set aside however keeping the order of dismissal intact. Rehearing of the application for permission to dismiss the respondent was started a new. The respondent made an application for the sine die adjournment of the petition on the ground that on the same grounds a complaint was pending before the N.I.R.C. The learned lower Court vide its order, dated 16-1-1983 accepted the application adjourning the case sine die. Yet by another order, dated 8-3-1983 the learned lower Court directed the petitioners to take back the respondent on duty without finally deciding the application for permission to dismiss the respondent.
2. Needless to say that all the provisions of C.P.C. Are not applicable to all kinds of applications brought under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, with the result that Order LXVII is not applicable. There is no provision in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 empowering the Labour Courts to review their orders.
3. Although the Court that passed an ex parte decision has jurisdiction to set aside the same on good grounds yet since an order passed under section 47 permitting the dismissal of a worker is not a final order, the permission given ex parte under the said section cannot be withdrawn in cases in which the worker has actually been dismissed. The remedy in such cases for the dismissed person is under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned lower Court did not come to a final conclusion that the respondent had actually committed the alleged misconduct but had only prima facie found that the petitioners were entitled to be given permission to dismiss the respondent. The order, dated 16-1-1983, whereby the application given under section 47(2) was adjourned sine die, was not justified. The case pending before the N.I.R.C.
Was a criminal complaint whereas the petition given under section 47 was of civil nature. The decision of a criminal Court is not binding upon the Courts deciding cases of civil nature. Of course, if a case of unfair labour practice has been brought before the N.I.R.C. a complaint on the same facts cannot be heard by the Labour Courts under proviso to section 22-A (12) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In the order, dated 26-9-1982 the learned lower Court had directed that the order of dismissal would remain intact. As the learned lower Court had no power to review, the order, dated 8-3-1983 was without jurisdiction, whereby the petitioners were directed to put the respondent back on duty.
4. As a result of the discussion made above, the learned lower Court is directed to expedite the decision of the petition for permission to dismiss the respondent. The order, dated 16-1-1983 is set aside. Since the permission of dismissal was set aside by the learned lower Court vide its order, dated 26-9-1980, the respondent was entitled to be put back on duty and the order of dismissal was wrongly directed to remain intact. So he should be put back on duty immediately. The revision is disposed of accordingly.