Muhammad Iqbal, respondent, at the relevant time was working as Lower Division Clerk in the Accounts Section of Capital Development Authority, Islamabad. He was relieved fear Army duty on 6-12-1971. He rejoined his Department on 28-12-1972. On 27-4-1975 departmental examination for promotion of Lower Division Clerks to Upper Division Clerks was held in which the respondent also participated but failed. Again another departmental examination for promotion was held on 17-4- 1977 in which 64 candidates, including the respondent, were declared successful and the respondent secured 6th position in it. Out of these 64 successful candidates, 49, whose Annual Confidential Reports were in order, promoted as Upper Division Clerks with effect from 30th May, 1977. According to the respondent, among them only four persons were senior to him while the rest were junior to him, Muhammad Iqbal, respondent, however, was not promoted as according to the Department, he dill not earn the required three consecutive good Annual Confidential Reports as there was adverse entry in his Annual Confidential Report for the year 1975 and the same had been duly conveyed to him on 3-6-1976.
2. Muhammad Iqbal, respondent, filed a petition under section 25-A, of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before the Labour Court praying that the department be directed to redress his grievance in respect of promo--tion as Upper Division Clerk being senior-most-person in the category, with all other benefits. He also filed a list of 49 promotees which did not include his own name. The Labour Court accepted the petition and directed that the relief prayed for be given to the respondent. The Capital Development Authority, Islamabad, appellant has challenged that order in appeal before this Tribunal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised a preliminary objection that those persons, who are going to be adversely affected by the impugned order of the Labour Court, are necessary party and should be impleaded as such before any final order is passed by this Tribunal. He further states that a similar objection was also raised before the Labour Court but the same was given due consideration. The learned counsel for the respondent vehementally opposes this preliminary objection. According to him, the only requirement of law is that under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 3969, a grievance notice is to be served only upon the employer and other persons, who may be adversely affected, are not entitled to any notice and therefore, are not necessary party. He further contends that general principle of natural justice cannot be invoked in labour cases under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1959 as the same is not specifically included or mentioned in it.
4. The maxim "Audi Alteram Partem" (no person shall be condemned unheard) is not confined to only certain particular class of statutes or any particular type of proceedings but this principle is applicable to all statutes or proceedings which are likely to affect adversely the personal or property or other rights, privileges or benefits of another person, then the person so affected must be given a fair opportunity of being heard and representing and defending his rights. Mere omission or absence of a provision of this principle in a particular statute cannot override this well- settled principle of natural justice, which according to their Lordships of the Supreme Court as laid down in several cases, is to be read into the relevant law-whether it an ordinary law or a special law like labour statute--unless its application is excluded by express words. There is nothing in the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 excluding the application of the principle of natural justice It can, therefore, safely be held that the principle of Audi Alteram Partem is applicable to labour cases instituted under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. Following this principle, those promotees, against whom Muhammad Iqbal, respondent, claims seniority, cannot be denied this right and should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend their seniority against the claim of the respondent: In other words, they cannot be condemned unheard and must at least be made aware of the nature of allegation made by the respon--dent against their seniority. Notice to them, therefore, is necessary even at this stage. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent is not acceptable as the same is too technical and contrary to the basic principle of justice.
5. Apart from the principle of natural justice there is another aspect of the matter which supports the above conclusion. Out of 49 promotes the respondent claims seniority against 45 of them. If they are not impleaded as a party before the Labour Court or before this Tribunal and ultimately the respondent succeeds and the order in his favour is implemented, they will be adversely affected and will be made junior to him. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, at that stage they should follow the same course which was followed by the respondent, i. e. They should first serve a grievance notice upon the Department under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and then file a petition under the said section impleading the present respondent as a party. The Labour Court at that stage can examine their right and determine the seniority of the parties and the aggrieved party can come before this Tribunal in appeal. By following this lengthy procedure the ultimate result may be the same but it will unnecessarily multiply litigation and cause unnecessary delay. Keeping in view the basic principle of justice the proper course in such a situation is that the applicant before the Labour Court should implead as party all such persons who are likely to be adversely affected in case he succeeds. If it is not done before the Labour Court, such persons can be impleaded in appeal or revision before the Appellate Tribunal, or if they themselves choose to apply to become a party their application can be allowed and made a party before the Labour. Court or the Tribunal as the case may be. To avoid multiplicity of litigation, unnecessary delay, time and expense it is proper that such persons should be impleaded as party if possibly at the earliest before the trial Court or before the Appellate Tribunal. Keeping in view these considerations coupled with the principle of natural justice, I direct the appellant to implead all such persons as party who are likely to be adversely affected in case the respondent succeeds. The office shall issue notice to them for the next date fixed in the appeal.