DECISION These nine Revision Applications arising from six cases filed by workers before the Labour Court at Sukkur for a second the when the previous Revision Applications were moved for rejection of the grievance petitions under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.
2. The facts in brief are that Habib Sugar Mills the applicant had terminated the services of the six respondents and they had moved their grievance petitions before Labour Court, Sukkur challenging their termination of service. Before the case could proceed the learned Advocate for Habib Sugar Mills moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. That the petitions be rejected on the ground that the petitions were on account of individual grievances of termination of their service and were not in respect of an industrial dispute.
3. These Revision Applications were heard and decided by this Tribunal holding that they were premature as it was an issue of fact whether the termination of service could be regarded as an Industrial dispute. In any case it was a mixed question of law and fact. The cases were therefore referred back to the Labour Court for recording evidence and then deciding these issues. A direction was also issued to the Labour Court to complete the proceedings without further delay as the matter concerned the question of employment of the poor workers.
4. After the matter was sent back an application appears to have been made to the Labour Court by the learned Advocate for the Habib Sugar Mills that the Jang Daily from Karachi and Ibrat Daily from Hyderabad be summoned for evidence. It need not be stated how much the it usually takes to obtain the presence of such august papers from Karachi and Hyderabad at Sukkur for recording of their evidence. After all the question was one of termination of service and it was not the case of murder or forgery.
5. The Labour Court after getting such applications found that Habib Sugar Mills Lawyer was not interested in getting a quick decision but wanted to prolong the proceedings when the, Appellate Tribunal had issued directions to complete the proceedings without further delay. The learned Labour Court also found that Habib Sugar Mills had engaged their Advocate without obtaining prior permission as required under section 49(3) of I.R.O. When eventually an application was made for representation by legal practitioner, in the proceedings, it was refused on the ground that Habib Sugar Mills Managers who had already appeared previously had conducted the proceedings, were sufficiently acquainted with the labour laws and there was no need for them to be represented by a lawyer at that stage; Against this order the learned Advocate for Habib Sugar Mills Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani has again moved these nine Revision Applications.
6. The contention of the learned Advocate is that this provision of the I.R.O. Should not have been made use of, in his case, :or the first the and the order is improper and should be quashed. Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani has then suggested that this question should be decided as a test question by hearing him for Habib Sugar Mills and also making senior Advocates to advise the Court to the point.
7. It is obvious that the Sukkur Labour Court passed this order because the learned lawyer after getting adverse order on an interlocutory application tried to stop further proceedings and more other such frivolous applications. Thus the matter had been sufficiently delayed. It is only in this matter that section 49 of the I.R.O. Has been made applicable and there has been no demand from any other lawyer, and from any other Court for deciding this issue which is quite simple and requires further interpretation. Heavens would not fall, if Mr. Mehmood A. Ghani does not take the trouble of representing Habib Sugar Mills in these cases at Sukkur, when the officer from the Mills can easily represent the. Management without further loss of the. I, therefore, don't agree to stop the proceedings in these matters and give long hearing by allowing the Advocates for and against to argue the matter. Of course this might be in the interest of M/s. Habib Sugar Mills.
These nine Revision Applications are, therefore, dismissed in limine.