DECISION ' These are two sets of Revision Applications, one set consists of 81 petitions and the other set consists of 10 petitions. Similar 11 petitions were heard and decided by an order dated 24-10-1996.
The first set of petitions is against the order of Labour Court No, VI, Hyderabad. The next set of petitions is against the order passed by the 5th Sindh Labour Court, Karachi. These orders were passed on .Applications under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code. All these cases involved common questions of law and fact and will be disposed of by this common order.
2. Mr. Nazir Hussain Jaffri appearing for the applicants namely Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation was present when the 11 appeals were disposed of on the same question. Mr. Nasir Hussain Jaffri has sent one application for adjournment in all those matters that he is busy before Hon'ble Supreme Court. Since the date in these matters was given with absence of the Advocates for the parties and these were the only matters fixed for the day Mr. Jaffri should have arranged appearance. In any case since only one law point is involved and it has already been disposed of in the first set, there is no question of any prejudice to any party.
3. The facts of these cases in brief are that all the respondents were employees of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation. They weret appointed on various dates as labourers, Operators, Drivers, Cleaners,` Clerks, Chowkidars etc. Their services were terminated enmass without giving any explicit reasons for the termination. They, therefore, filed grievance petitions under section 25- A of the I.R.O. Before Labour Courts at Hyderabad and Karachi. Before these cases had proceeded and before any evidence was recorded the applicant Corporation through their Advocate filed an interlocutory application in each case under Order 7, Rule 11 read with section 151, Civil Procedure Code that since all the petitioners who had moved the grievance petitions were. Federal Civil Servants and not workmen under the I.R.O. Their petitions were not maintainable and should be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.
4. The learned Labour Court at Hyderabad found that the question was not so simple as to be decided without evidence whether a person was a worker or workman or came within the definition of civil servant under the Civil Servants Act. He accordingly passed the order that out of 91 grievance petitions 82 petitions should remain, for recording of evidence, while the cases of 9 petitioners be returned to them for filing the same before proper forum if they are so advised.
Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation hereinafter to be referred to as P.T.C. Have preferred 81 Revision Applications against these orders. In the other set of 10 Revision Applications the Labour Court at Karachi passed the order on similar interlocutory application that the question required full enquiry and without giving an opportunity to the grievance petitioners for leading evidence these questions could not be resolved. The Miscellaneous Applications under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C.
Were therefore all dismissed. Against these orders on the interlocutory applications them. P.T.C.
Have moved these Revisions before the Tribunal.
5. The question now arises whether the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is governed by the Civil Procedure Code and the proceedings under the I.R.O. Are subject to the orders and rules enacted in the C.P.C. Order 7, Rule 11 of the C.P.C. Is as under:-- "The plaint shall be rejected in the following cases:
(a) Where it does not disclose a cause of action;
(b) Where the relief claimed is undervalued and the plaintiff on being required by the Court to correct the valuation fails to do so; '
(c) Where the plaint is written upon paper insufficiently stamped the plaintiff fails to supply the requisite stamp paper within the time fixed;
(d) Where the suit appears on the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law."
' Under Rule 13 the rejection shall not of its own force preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action.
6. Without going into the facts and merits, whether these grievance petitions disclosed on the bare reading no cause of action, the point that arises is, whether all the provisions of the C.P.C. Are applicable to cases under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The very reading of section 36 of the Ordinance clause (2) shows that the Labour Court shall for the purpose of adjudicating and determining any industrial dispute be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have the same powers as are vested in such Court under the Code of Civil Procedure including the powers of: "(a) enforcing attendance of witnesses;
(b) compelling production of documents; and
(c) issuing commission for the examination of witnesses and other documents."
7. Thus the scope of section 36(2) is very much limited. It is only for the purpose of adjudicating and determining any industrial dispute that the Labour Court has the procedural powers enumerated in clauses (a), (b) and (c). The other powers to be exercised have to be of the like nature ejusdem generis. There is no such power as rejection of the plaint for under valuation court-fee and disclosure of cause of action etc. The procedure under the I.R.O. Is mentioned under section 35 of the I.R.O. Itself, under sub-clauses 5(a), (b), (c) and (d). There are clear decisions of the Sindh High Court and the Lahore High Court on this very point. In the Sindh High Court ruling in the case of Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited v. Second Sindh Labour Court, Karachi reported in 1973 PLC 111 was held that subsection (2) of section 36 does not confer on Labour Court adjudicating industrial dispute, all powers of a Civil Court. The Labour Court has no authority to pass order in the nature of interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. Restraining the employer from terminating the services of the employee. It was observed by Tufail Ali, C.J. That section 36 of the I.R.O. Does not really deal with the powers of the Labour Court. Its main powers are conferred by section 35(5) and not section 36. The reference to powers is incidental and closely bound up with procedure. It is only while adjudicating and determining an industrial dispute that these powers can have limited effect. The order under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 was, therefore, set aside as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
8. The decision of the Lahore High Court is in the case of National Bank of Pakistan Employees'
Union v. Labour Appellate Tribunal reported in National Law Reporter 1983 PLC 1256, it was held in that case that Labour Court/Appellate Tribunal are not invested with all powers of Civil Court under C.P.C. But only such of them as may be described is procedural that is as are required for the purpose of an industrial dispute. It was observed in the course of judgment that: "I am, therefore, of the view that section 36 subsection (2) does not confer upon a Labor Court, while adjudicating and determining an industrial dispute, all the powers of a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code but only such of them as may be described as procedural that is such as are required for the purpose of adjudicating and determination of an industrial dispute."
9. The impugned order of the Punjab Labor Appellate Tribunal was, therefore, declared as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The writ petition was accepted.
10. The points involved in all these cases give rise to mixed issues of law and fact whether the petitioners workmen are Federal Government servants or they are workmen under the I.R.O.
Depending on evidence oral and documentary and there is no provision for rejection for the grievance petitions. The evidence has to be heard, issues have to be settled and the law has to be discussed in case of each workman before dismissal of the grievance petitions.
11. Under the circumstances, all these Revision Applications are not maintainable and are, therefore, dismissed. The cases shall proceed in accordance with law and decisions will be arrived at after completing the evidence.
' Order accordingly.