' This revision arises from the order dated 16-2-1981 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No,3, Ferozewala, whereby the learned trial Judge accepted the review petition and withdrawing his order of dismissal of an application for the restoration of a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. The facts are that the respondent was dismissed from service on the allegations of misappropriation of money and negligence. He challenged the order of dismissal in his petition made under section 25-A of the Ordinance. The said petition was dismissed in default on 4-7-1978 vide order Annexure 'C'. The respondent applied for the restoration of the said grievance petition by means of a petition made on 8-7-1978 but that petition was also dismissed in default on 10-9-1979 vide order Annexure 'B'. The respondent brought the review petition against that order on 15-3-1980, which was accepted and the said order has been challenged by the petition in the present revision.
3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that firstly the review petition was time-barred and no application for condonation of delay was made and secondly that the learned lower Court had no powers of review under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. He relies upon 1974 PLC 225. The observations made in the authority cited by the learned counsel are:- "The power of review is not available to an industrial court on the basis of general principles or by virtue of section 20 of the General Clauses Act. The power of review is not a mala of mere procedure but it is a question of jurisdiction which cannot be exercised unless it has been expressly conferred upon a Tribunal. A right of review like an appeal is a substantive right and it is not available unless the statute confers that right upon the Court or the Tribunal, as the case may be."
There is nothing in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to empower the Labour Courts to review their own orders, whosoever mistaken they are. Needless to say that the Code of Civil Procedure is not 'applicable, therefore, unless expressly the Labour Court had been invested with the powers for review, the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with his own orders by reviewing it.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent had appeared in the early hours before the case was called and said that he had cases in the High Court and promised to come back at about 12.00 noon, but he has not turned up upto the last and thus his arguments have not been heard.
5. In view of the observations made above, I accept the revision and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court, dismiss the application for review made in the Labour Court.