The petitioners, in the instant revision petition, assail the validity of an order passed by the Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi on 20th of May, 1992, whereby it decided to proceed with the application of the respondent for their prosecution under subsection (8) of section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2.. The respondent was an employee of the petitioners as Sub-Editor. She was dismissed from service on 29th of March, 1990 on the ground of unauthorised absence. She filed a grievance petition assailing her dismissal. The petitioners contested the grievance petition. The Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi vide its decision dated 13th of December, 1990 accepted the grievance petition and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent in service with fullback benefits within a period of thirty days.
3. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved, preferred an appeal before this Tribunal. This appeal was dismissed in limine by my learned predecessor vide judgment dated 15th of January, 1991. The petitioners challenged the judgment of this Tribunal in the High Court by way of Writ Petition No. 460 of 1991. The High Court vide its judgment dated 29th of February, 1992 declined to interfere on merits and disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the petitioner, if so advised, would be at liberty to proceed afresh in the matter strictly in accordance with law. In pursuance of this judgment, the petitioners decided to hold a fresh inquiry against the respondent.
4. On 1st of April, 1992 the respondent wrote to the petitioners for payment of her back benefits. The Chief Executive vide his letter dated 11th of April, 1992 intimated the respondent that since the High Court had permitted the management to proceed afresh in the matter, the question of payment of back benefits would be decided after the conclusion of the inquiry. The respondent again addressed a letter to the petitioners on 14th of April, 1992 demanding payment of back benefits. The Chief Executive vide his reply dated 18th of April, 1992 reiterated his earlier stand. On 23rd of April, 1992 the respondent filed an application in the Punjab Labour Court No. 6, Rawalpindi for action against the petitioners under section 25-A, subsections (8) and (9) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and for a direction to them to pay her back benefits.
5. The petitioners in their reply raised two contentions; firstly, that since the Labour Court itself was the complainant in the case of 'non---implementation of its orders, it could not proceed against them under section 25-A, subsections (8) and (9) ' of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and secondly, that the respondent was not entitled to back benefits as the High Court had permitted them to hold an inquiry against her.
6. The learned Labour Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties, overruled the objection of the petitioners to its competency to proceed in the matter, as prayed for by the respondent. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this revision petition.
7. In pursuance of a notice issued in this revision petition, the respondent appeared only once but absented herself on the subsequent dates as a result of which this revision petition has been heard ex parte.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. Learned counsel has argued that prosecution of a person for non---implementation of a decision or an order of a Labour Court or the Tribunal, as envisaged by section 25-A, subsections (8) and (9) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 can commence only on the complaint of the Labour Court or the Tribunal and, therefore, it cannot itself hold the trial of the defaulter. He has cited Salim Aziz Siddiqui and another v. Labour Court No. 6 and another (1981 PLC 663). This precedent, however, is not relevant as it deals with a case in which no period was specified for the implementation of the decision. In this case, however, the period, as pointed out above, was specified and, therefore, the respondent was perfectly within right to herself file a complaint against the petitioners as contemplated in clause (a) of subsection (9).
9. As regards back benefits, the same were allowed by the Labour Court whose decision was upheld by this Tribunal. The High Court also in the writ petition declined to interfere on merits which implies that the decision of the Labour Court remained intact. In the proceedings under subsections (8) and (9), referred to above, the Labour Court is not competent to go behind its decision. Therefore, the objection of the petitioners with regard to back benefits does not sustain. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon Qadeer Ahmad v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (PLD 1990 SC 787) and National Bank of Pakistan and another v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others 1993 SCM R 105 which, in the circumstances, are of no avail to the petitioners.
10. For the foregoing reasons, I find no force in this revision petition and accordingly dismiss the same.
11. The record received from the Labour Court shall be returned to it for further proceedings in accordance with law.