KAKAKHEL INDUSTRIES LTD. FAISALABAD THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR /PERSONNEL MANAGER/FACTORY MANAGER Versus MUHAMMAD ARSHAD

The revision titled above reports that the decision dated 26‑2‑1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1 Lahore is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

2. The grievance petition of the respondent was accepted with back benefits and he brought an application under section 51 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for the recovery of the same. It was withdrawn for the time being and fresh petition was brought, which was, by the impugned order, accepted.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the grievance petition is against Mr. H. Mumtaz and not against the Company, thus was not maintainable. The other argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since no permission was taken from the Court at the time of withdrawing the previous petition to bring fresh petition, the second petition was not maintainable.

4. So far as the second point is concerned, the learned lower Court has itself observed in the impugned decision that the previous petition was withdrawn under the instructions of the Court to bring a fresh one. This is true that the learned lower Court while allowing the withdrawal of the previous petition did not say that permission for bringing the fresh petition was accorded, but since in the impugned order it is said that the previous petition was withdrawn under the instructions of the Court for bringing of fresh petition, it is apparent that permission in that respect was in reality accorded. Even otherwise p the second petition lay since the first one was not decided on merits and the amount of back benefits stood undetermined before the decision of the second petition. The objection, therefore, is overruled.

5. So far as the first objection is concerned, it has not been shown that either at the time of bringing the petition under section 51 or even at present Mr. M. Mumtaz had ceased to remain the Managing Director of National Tyre and Rubber Company. Admittedly the decision for the implementation of which the petition under section 51 was brought was against the company and as the respondent was the employee of the company and not the personal servant of Mr. H. Mumtaz, the direction was against the company to re‑instate the respondent and to pay back benefits to him. Since the word 'employer' is used under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, therefore, the officer who has terminated the services is to be sued and if the order of the Court is not implemented, he is to be made the respondent in the capacity of the office held by him but it does not mean that he is imp leaded as party to the main grievance petition or in a complaint brought for the implementation of the order in his personal capacity. Since there is no evidence that at the time the petition was accepted by the learned lower Court Mr. H. Mumtaz was not the Managing Director, the direction has been rightly issued against him in the capacity of Managing Director of National Tyre and Rubber Company.

6. No other point has been argued.

7. As a result of what has been said above, the revision fails and is dismissed.

A. E. /253/Lb.P

Revision dismissed.