' These are six revision applications under section 33(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinace, 1969.
Against the order dated 3-8-1999, passed by the learned IVth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi.
2. Brief facts, relevant for the purpose of these revisions are, that twenty-eight employees filed applications under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969, before the learned Pith Sindh Labour Court, Karachi.
Out, oftwentyeight, six have filed complaint under section 25-A(s) of I.R.O., 1969, for taking contempt proceeding for non-compliance. All the counsel for the parties agreed that the orders on application under section 25-A, were all passed in 1996. Sometime after complaints under section 25-A(s) for noncompliance of the order as to the payment of back benefits, the Steel Mill has complied with the order of reinstatement except in one case, represented by Mr. Latif Saghar, before this Tribunal, because according to Miss Mahreen Nazar, learned counsel for the applicant, the learned lower Court had exceeded his jurisdiction of confirming the employee. An application was, however, filed under section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act. Made applicable to the proceedings under I.R.O. And Labour Appellate Tribunal, that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Arguments were heard and the learned Presiding Officer passed the order dated 3-8-1999 whereby he dismissed the application holding that--; "the amendment in question would have the retrospective effect and in case the cases are ordered to have abated, what would be the fate of the applicants/complainants, who are prosecuting and perusing their cases rather rotting since long."
3. Learned counsel for the applicant, however, does not agree with the statement of Mr. Saghar that his client has not been reinstated. Mr. Tasnim, however, submits that his clients have not been paid back benefits in full. These points cannot be decided by me in revision because these are pure questions of fact.
4. I have gone through the entire order, impugned before me in these revisions, from the start till the end and find that at the end of the order at page 4 a bunch of rulings, as many as five, have been listed but they have been amalgamated without underlining the reasoning given by the Hon'ble Courts in each case. The learned Presiding Officer has simply observed after listing the above five cases, that: ' He has tried to convince this Court by relying on the authorities reported in (1) 1999 SCMR 197, (2)
PLD 1969 SC 167, (3) 1986 SCMR page 1994, (4) 1977 SCMR 371 and (5) PLD 1990 SC 951, that the amendment in section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 would have retrospective effect and no presecution or the proceedings would take place in this Court."
' These authorities, inter alia, include that 'no prosecution' or "the proceedings" would take place in this Court.
5. I asked the learned counsel for the parties to refer the relevant authority, cited by the learned Presiding Officer in his order, but none of the counsel were able to produce any authority to show that Article 2-A also bars the prosecution. Although I gave them sufficient time to find out the relevant authority.
6. The point, therefore, remains to be decided, according to me. Whether in a decided matter under section 25-A, complaint for prosecution under section 25-A(8) is maintainable in view of section 2- A, Service Tribunals Act, 1973. In any case, this Tribunal, having decided in a number of cases, does not favour invoking jurisdcition in piecemeal. Reference may be made to an unreported order dated 16-5-1999, passed by me in Revision Application Nos, KAR-4 and 5 of 1999 (Muslim Commercial Bank Limited v. (1) Muhammad Yaseen, (2) Saeed Ghani).
7. This conclusion to which I have come, will not, however. Finally determine the dispute between the parties, as to the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 25-A(8) after I.R.O., 1969, which may be determined finally by this Tribunal after the case is finally decided by the learned Labour Court and appeal/revision if any is filed before this Tribunal by the party aggrieved.
8. I would, therefore, remand the case to the learned Labour Court, to which learned counsel for the respondent agrees, to proceed with the matter, after allowing opportunity to the parties to lead evidence, if any.
9. With the above observations, the revisions are disposed of. The impugned order stands set aside.
10. Before parting with the matter, I would like to observe that the Presiding Officers of Sindh Labour Courts, while mentioning the case-law, should avoid describing the same in bunch. They must name the parties, the Court deciding the case and also give relevant quotations from the said cases. This part of the judgment may please by circulated by the Registrar amongst all the Presiding Officers of the Sindh Labour Courts.
11.- In view of the order passed in the above revisions, Miscellaneous Applications No,351 of 1999, 352 of 1999, 353 of 1999, 363 of 1999, 366 of 1999 and 367 of 1999 for stay, having become infructuous, are dismissed.