The respondents-employees filed 17 petitions under section 25-A of the I.R.O. through C.BA. Union.
They claimed that they were entitled to grant of house rent. The petitioners resisted these applications and submitted reply thereto. Thereafter these petitions were consolidated with a petition moved by the C.BA. Union of the employees for the same relief as claimed in these petitions. All the petitions were allowed by the learned Labour Court No, 7 in view of its order passed in the case of C.BA. Union. The orders are dated 27-41988. The petitioners assailed these orders through appeals before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore. The appeals were dismissed on the short ground that since the petitioners have not appended with the memos. of appeal certified copies of the impugned orders, therefore, the appeals are not competent. The orders are dated 13-7-1988. Now the petitioners have assailed both the orders through these Constitutional Petitions Nos,6116/88, 6117/88, 6118/88, 6119/88, 6120/88, 6121/88, 6122/88, 6123/88, 6124/88, 6125/88, 6126/88, 6127/88, 6128/88, 6149/88, 6150/88 and 6151/88. Since the legal and factual position is exactly the same, therefore, these petitions are disposed of through this single judgment.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the petitions has argued that the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal has passed contradictory orders while disposing of the appeals as the appeal against the main order was accepted and case remanded while the other appeals, subject-matter of the present Constitutional petitions, were dismissed on technical ground. This has given rise to anomalous position as the petition of the C.BA. Union is pending before the learned Labour Court after remand while the orders in the individual petitions have attained finality with the dismissal of appeals of the petitioners.
3. First question for determination arises whether the submission of certified copies of the impugned orders of the learned Labour Court with memos. of appeal filed before Tribunal was essential or not? The learned counsel for the respondents-employees candidly conceded that the legal position is that it was not essential, The non-submission of the certified copy alongwith the memorandums of appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is not visited by any penalty, therefore, the provision will be deemed merely directory in nature and not mandatory. This way the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal acted illegally while dismissing the appeals of the petitioners on this ground.
4. This is not all. The next question which arises for consideration is whether these matters should be remanded to the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal for decision of the appeals in accordance with the law or it should be straightaway sent to the learned Labour Court? This situation has arisen due to the fact that in the case of Muhammad Riaz etc. (subject-matter of W.P.
No, 5808/88) involving exactly the same legal and factual position the learned Tribunal has remanded the case to the learned Labour Court. Therefore, it will be a just futile exercise to remand the case to the Tribunal because it is bound to follow its earlier decision in the case of Muhammad Riaz etc. and remand it to the learned Labour Court. In order to cut short the agony of the parties and in the ends of justice these petitions are allowed and matters remanded to learned Labour Court No, 7.
5. The result is that now the peons of the respondents-employees will be deemed to be pending before the learned Labour Court, who shall decide the same in accordance with the law after giving reasonable opportunity to the parties. It need not be observed that any of the parties if so advised and permitted by law can seek the amendment of its pleadings.
6. The learned Labour Court is directed to decide these matters expeditiously.