1. ' Through this revision application under section 48(3) of the I.R.O. 2002 the applicant, Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Has assailed the . Order dated 24.5-2003 passed by the Sindh Labour Court No, VII, at Sukkur, dismissing the application under section 49(3), of I.R.O., 1969.
2. ' The relevant facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent, who was employed as a 0.0-II Accountant with respondent-Bank, filed a grievance application under section 25-A(4) of I.R.O.
3. 1969, before the Labour Court No, VII at Sukkur against his dismissal from service by the applicant- Bank.
4. ' On 21-9-2002 M. Azizullah Bhambhro, Incharge Regional Office Sukkur, along with Mr. A.M: Mobeen Khan Advocate appeared before the Labour Court and filed an application under section 49(3) of I.R.O. 1969 along with an application for adjournment, The said applications were accompanied by two Vakalatnamas, one of which was signed by the said Mr. Azizullah Bhambhro and the other was signed by Secretary Disciplinary Action Committee of the applicant-Bank, who was impleaded as respondent No,3, before the Labour Court, the Vakalatnamas were accompanied by a power of attorney. The case was however, adjourned to 20-10-2002, for Mr. Bhambhro to satisfy the Court regarding his competence to represent the applicant-Bank and to seek permission for the applicant-Bank to be represented through a counsel. Subsequently Mr. Mobeen Khan Advocate filed an application for rejection of the respondent's main application filed under section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969, supported by an affidavit of Mr. Azizullah. Bhambhro the learned counsel also filed a Vakalatnama signed by Mr. Aftab Alam, the Regional Manager of the applicant-Bank. Together with a letter of authority and a power of attorney in favuor of Mr. ,Bhambhro. Another application for the enlargement of time for filing reply statement was also filed by Mr. Mobeen Khan Advocate, on behalf of the applicant Bank.
5. ' On 2-10-2002 the learned Labour Court dismissed the application filed by Mr. Mobeen Khan, for rejection of the main petition, on the ground that the earlier application filed by Mr. Bhambhro under section 49(3) of I.R.O. 1969 pending hearing, was filed by an incompetent person and thus the application for rejection of the main petition was also filed by an incompetent person. The Labour Court however, allowed time to the applicant-Bank to file its reply statement by 15-10-2002.
6. ' On 15-10-2002 Mr. Azizullah Bhambhro appeared before the Labour Court along with a Pupil of Mr. Shahid Aziz Bajwa Advocate and filed a Vakalatanam of M/s Shahid Aziz Bajwa and Company Advocates. The learned Labour Court however struck off the defence of the applicant-Bank on the ground that neither any proper application under section 49(3) of I.R.O. 1969 was filed nor was any applications for enlargement of time for filing reply statement was filed by the applicant Bank.
7. ' On 22-10-2002 Mr. Azizullah Bhambhro appeared before the Court along with the counsel for the applicant-Bank, who filed an application for re-calling the order dated 15-10-2002 and to allow the applicant-bank to file its reply statement and also filed an application for recalling the order dated 2-10-2002.
8. ' By order dated ,24-5-2002, the learned Labour Court, whilst observing that a petition under section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969 is to be treated as an industrial dispute, and that in terms of section 49(3) of I.R.O.
9. 1969, a party to such dispute can only be represented through an Advocate, after the said party has itself obtained permission from the Court in that regard, dismissed the applicants application under section 49(3) of I.R.O.
10. 2002. (The impugned order)..
11. ' The learned counsel for the applicant-Bank submitted that proceedings under section 25-A of I.R.O. Are not proceedings relating to an industrial dispute as defined by section 49 of I.R.O. 1969 and thus no permission is required by an employer to be represented through an Advocate. In support of his contention the learned counsel relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah Textile Mills Limited v. Muhammad Jamal (1984 PLC 771).
12. ' On the other hand the learned counsel for the. Respondent submitted that proceedings under section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969 (corresponding section 46 of the I.R.O. 2002) are proceedings relating to an "industrial dispute" and that a party to such proceedings is essentially required to obtain permission, as envisaged under section 49. Of I.R.O.
13. 1969.
14. ' Heard the learned counsel and perused the record of the case.
15. ' Industrial dispute as defined by sub-clause (xiii) of section 2 of I.R.O. 1969, (corresponding section 2(xvi) of I.R.O. 2002) means any dispute or difference between employers and employers or between employers and workmen or between workmen and workmen, which relates to the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person and not in respect of the enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to him by or under any law other than the I.R.O., or any award or settlement for the time being in force. Whereas proceedings under section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969 (Corresponding section 46 of I.R.O. 2002) pending before the Labour Court, are not the proceedings relating to an "industrial disputes". The question about enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured by or under any law other than I.R.O., or any award or settlement, have been differentiated from dispute concerning the employment or non- employment or the terms of employment or the conditions of work of any person. It is in fact, such matter which does not fall within the ambit of subsection xiii of section 2 of the I.R.O. 1969, which are dealt under section 25 and section 34 of the I.R.O.
16. 1969.
17. ' In terms of section 25-A of the I.R.O. Where a matter is to be considered by a domestic forum the representation by the worker will be through in-house agencies viz himself, shop steward or the Collective Bargaining Agent, however, in case the dispute is placed before an outside forum like a Court, then the parties are not deprived of the professional legal assistance. It is with such intent only, that the word "himself' has been omitted from subsection (4) of section 25-A, although subsection (1) of section 25-A which deals with in-house resolution/settlement of a grievance, requires a Worker to bring his grievance to his employer, either himself or through his shop steward or collective bargaining agent.
18. ' In the case of Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah Textile Mills Ltd. v. Muhammad Jamal (1984 PLC 771), supra, Division Bench of this Court whilst deciding the question whether proceedings under section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969 are proceedings relating to "industrial dispute" as envisaged under section 49 of the I.R.O. 1969 (Corresponding section 43(1) of I.R.O. 2002) and whether permission is required by a party to be represented through an Advocate in such matter, held that the definition of "industrial dispute" as given in section (xiii) of I.R.O. 1969 expressly excludes from its purview individual grievance under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969-which are limited to enforcement of rights of individual workmen guaranteed or secured by law, and award or settlement. Their Lordships further observed that the proceedings under. Section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969 pending before the Labour - Court, are not proceedings relating to an "industrial dispute" which can be raised only in a prescribed manner under section 34 of I.R.O. 1969 (Corresponding section 33 of I.R.O. 2002) by Collective Bargaining Agent or an employer. Their Lordships, in the above case relied upon the judgment in Jalaluddin v. Orient Watch Company (1968 PLC 137), wherein a Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan had observed that a dispute between an individual workman and employer cannot be an "industrial dispute".
19. ' In the case of Messrs Ramzan Ail & Co., Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Mirpur Khas v.
20. General Secretary, Employee's Union and another (1996 PLC 311), a Division Bench of this Court, dealing with the question whether in the proceedings under section 34 of I.R.O.
21. 1.969 a party can be represented by an Advocate, without such a party seeking a prior permission from the Court, whilst relying on the above cited judgments, has held that the words "any right guaranteed or secured ; used in section 25-A and section 34 of I.R.O. 1969 cannot be substituted for the, word "Industrial Dispute" and vice versa. A grievance application moved under section 25-A of I.R.O. 1969 shall be treated as an industrial dispute only for the purpose of deciding it within seven days, as appears from last line of subsection (4) of section 25-A of the I.R.O. Through the above- cited judgment the Division Bench upheld the decision of the Labour Court whereby it had allowed the respondents in proceedings under section 34 of I.R.O. 1969, to be represented by an Advocate without the respondent's seeking any permission in that regard.
22. ' From the above discussion it is now absolutely clear that no permission is required by a party to the proceedings under section 25-A of the I.R.O. 1969 (Corresponding section 46 of ,I.R.O. 2002).
23. Consequently the impugned order is set aside. The applicant-Bank shall fife a reply statement in the aforesaid proceedings, before the Labour Court within fifteen days from today and shall be allowed by the Labour Court to be represented by a counsel duly appointed by them.