HUSNAIN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. and another vs Syed KHAWAR
This matter originated from a complaint filed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, which was initially dismissed for non-prosecution but subsequently restored by the Labour Court, Haripur. The petitioners challenged this restoration order before the Peshawar High Court, which dismissed their appeal. The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether an interlocutory order restoring a complaint constitutes an appealable 'decision' or 'award' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, thereby invoking the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court. The Supreme Court held that the restoration order did not determine the rights or obligations of the parties and thus did not qualify as a decision or judgment contemplated by Section 48(1) of the Ordinance. The Court reasoned that the legislature did not intend for every procedural order of the Labour Court to be subject to appeal before the High Court. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming that only substantive decisions affecting party rights are appealable under the statutory framework.
- Does an order restoring a complaint dismissed for non-prosecution constitute an appealable decision under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
- Does the High Court have appellate jurisdiction over every order passed by a Labour Court under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
- What constitutes a 'decision' or 'award' for the purposes of filing an appeal under Section 48 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002?
- Section 46(6), Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002
- Section 48(1), Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002
- Section 46, Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002
- Section 33, Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002
- Section 44(4)(c), Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002
- Section 48, Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002
ORDER
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.--- The respondent had filed a complaint under section 46(6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 20002 which was dismissed for want of prosecution. The application for restoration of the complaint was allowed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Haripur vide order, dated 13-3-2004. Therefore, the petitioners preferred F.A.L. No,3 of 2004 which was dismissed by the Peshawar High Court, Abbottabad Bench, vide impugned judgment, dated 29-11-2005.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the respondent had no locus standi and justification to file an application for restoration of the complaint. It was further contended that the Chief Executive of the Company of the petitioner was duly authorized to file an appeal before the High Court, against order, dated 13-3-2004.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and have also perused the available record.
4. Subsection (1) of section 48 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) provides, that the High Court may, on appeal, confirm, set aside, vary or modify the award or decision given under section 46 or 33, a sentence having passed under clause (c) of subsection (4) of section 44 and shall exercise all the powers conferred by this Ordinance on the Labour Court, save as otherwise provided. The learned counsel failed to satisfy us as to how an order of restoration of complaint could be treated to be a decision within the meaning of section 46 or 48 of the Ordinance so as to be appealable before the High Court. In our view, order dated 13- 3-2004 passed by the Labour Court was not in the nature of a decision or judgment as contemplated by subsection (1) of section 48 of the Ordinance. It did not have the effect of determining the rights or obligations of the parties. It appears that the Legislature had not intended each and every order of the Labour Court to be appealable before the High Court. The impugned judgment of the High Court is just and fair to which no exception can be taken. Even otherwise,, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to appeal.
' For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this petition which is dismissed and leave to appeal is refused accordingly.