DECISION This is an suo motu revision application under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 filed by the application challenging the correctness, legality and propriety of the order dated 12-7-1987 passed by the Sindh Labour Court No, IV, Karachi, who had dismissed the complaint of the applicant under section 55 of the I.R.O., 1969.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was previously employed in the establishment of the respondent and was retired from service on 22-7-1986 and in accordance with clause 47 of subsisting settlement between the C.B.A. And the management, arrived at on 31-1-1987, he requested the respondents to appoint his son, namely, Syed Shahid Ali who was fully qualified against the post, caused vacant due to his retirement but, this appointment was refused by the respondents on a vague plea that the recruitment in Pakistan Steel had been lianned by the Government. Being aggrieved with this refusal of the respondents, the applicant had submitted a complaint under section 55, I.R.O., 1969 before the learned Labour Court No,IV, Karachi who had passed the impugned order.
3. The case of the respondent before the learned Labour Court was that the recruitment in Pakistan Steel is banned under the orders of the Government and further that the question of an appointment and promotion was a premature question and that it wasalso for the employer to consider the suitability, antecedent and the fitness of a person and it was the prerogative of an employer, therefore no right was accrued to the applicant to maintain his complaint before the learned Labour Court and to invoke the suo motu revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal which is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent and have also carefully perused the record and proceedings of the case. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned Advocate for the respondents has contended that there was no prima facie case for the purpose of exercising the jurisdiction as was rightly rejected by the respondents in accordance with the contents of clause 47 of the said settlement providing conditions of efficiency, suitability and the vacancy of the job. Mr. Yaqoob has submitted that the rejection order of the request of the applicant was not absolute order to have denied the entitlement as the language referred to in the said order dated 26-3-1987 had still left the scope for the management to implement the term the said settlement, in force and it was beyond the control of the respondents to accept the request of the applicant in view of the fact that the Government had banned the recruitments. However, Mr. Yaqoob has given an undertaking before this Tribunal in specific words, that as and when the said ban is lifted by the Government the son of the applicant, namely, Syed Shahid Ali shall have the top-priority in the terms of the said settlement. Mr. Yaqoob, therefore, supported the impugned order and has further relied upon a case, reported in 1961 PLC page 274 and 1962 PLC at page 1318. In view of this undertaking, Mr. Bashir Awan, the learned Advocate for the ,applicant has not pressed his present application.
5. For the above reason the present suo motu revision application is dismissed the respondent are directed to give top priority to Syed Shahid Ali is the appointment and when the ban is lifted by the Government in terms of the above settlement for the vacancy. .