DECISION ' This is a Revision Application filed by Qalander Khan against the order, dated 23-9-1999 whereby Sindh Labour Court No, , Karachi dismissed his application under section 51, I.R.O. For recovery of Rs,9,87,840. The factual background of this case briefly stated is that the applicant was employee of the respondents (M/s. Union Cold Storage Co. Ltd.) which was closed down as far back as 5-2- 1983 with permission of the Labour Court under Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and as a result of such closure of the Establishment the services of all the employees including the applicant were terminated and they were paid their dues, the applicant getting Rs,37,000 as full and final payment.
Excepting the applicant no other workman agitated any claim against the respondents particularly because the Establishment not being in existence the question of reinstatement of any workman did not arise and further no funds being available for any such Establishment, the question of payment of any claim of any such workman also did not arise.
2. It is noteworthy that the applicant filed grievance petition in 1990 i,e, after about 7 years of the closure of the Establishment by order of Labour Court, dated 5-2-1983. Again the order of applicant's reinstatement was passed by the Labour Court No,III, on 30-9-1993 which was more or less ex parte order because the persons concerned with the closed Establishment not being available could not be served. Had they been available, they would have surely contested the applicant's case, and since it was decided in the applicant's favour, they would have challenged the decision in appeal. Admittedly no appeal was filed and as such it further confirmed the non- existence of the Establishment which was closed many years ago. This is how Labour Court's ex parte order attained finality.
3. In absence of the Establishment the applicant failed to get the reliefs of reinstatement and payment of back benefits despite the repeated attempts. Faced with this situation he had two options namely; first to file complaint against defaulting respondents forcing them for his reinstatement and second to file application under section 51, I.R.O., for recovery of back benefits. It is clear from the record that he availed both the options. The complaint filed by him was dismissed by order, dated 23rd September, 1999. As stated earlier even the application under section 51 filed in the Labour Court was also dismissed and this Revision Application is directed against the said order of the Labour Court.
3. I. Have, heard both the learned counsel for the parties Mr. A.De. Cruz for the applicant and Mr. Gulzar Ahmed for the respondents. I have also perused the necessary record of the case.
4. The first controversy between the learned advocates of the parties was with regard to jurisdiction of this Tribunal to entertain the Revision Application. The applicant's learned counsel submitted that the Revision Application was entertainable by this Tribunal under subsection (3-a) of section 38 of I.R.O., 1969. On the other hand the respondent's learned counsel referred to subsection (4) of section 37 of I.R.O., 1969 contending that in absence of any express provision in the Ordinance all decisions of the Labour Court shall be final and shall not be called in question in any manner by or before any Court or other authority. He further submitted that the only express provision in this connection was subsection (3) of section 38 which provides appeal from the award or decision given under section 25-A, section 34 or a sentence passed under clause (c) of subsection (5) of section 35. There is no mention of appeal against the order passed on application under section 51 of the Ordinance. According to the said learned counsel subsection (3-a) of section 38 deals with Revision of the Interlocutory Orders passed during the pending proceedings of the case and since the order under Revision in this case was a final order it did not fall under the aforesaid subsection (3-a). However, my attention was invited to the case of Sindh High Court reported as PLJ 1979 Karachi 212 which obviously allows Revision against the order passed by Labour Court under A section 51, I.R.O. Following that authority I hold that present Revision Application is maintainable.
5. Coming to the merits of the application I am in complete agreement with the findings arrived at by the Labour Court and the reasons given by the said Court in support of his findings. As pointed out above the Establishment became extinct long before the applicant filed his grievance petition and that was precisely the reason why the order passed in his favour on the said petition was more or less ex parte. It was again due to nonexistence of the Establishment that the order was not challenged in appeal. The applicant's repeated efforts to have the order implemented also totally failed. Even the latest application filed by him suffered from laches. As stated above, though the order of payment of back benefits was passed on 30-9-1993 i,e, after more than ten years of the closure of the Establishment, yet the applicant instead of becoming vigilant for implementation of the order he took more than three years for filing application under section 51, I.R.O. This shows as the applicant was not much interested and therefore, it was rightly remarked by the lower Court that the delay showed his lack of interest on the part of the applicant. Furthermore, consequent upon closure of the Establishment the service of all its employees including the applicant came to an end and they were paid their all dues. The applicant too got a substantial amount of 'Rs,37,000 as a full and final payment due to him. It is more or less a settled law that if the whole Establishment is closed down, it is not under any obligation to reinstate any employee or give him any benefits. In this connection the learned Labour Court has rightly relied upon 1993 PLC 308 wherein it was held:-- "employer having completely closed down its Establishment, even if employees were ordered to be reinstated in service, no effect could be given by the employer to such direction on account of such closure of Establishment.
' In view of above discussion the Revision Application is dismissed.