ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) ruled that the Full Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) possesses appellate jurisdiction under Section 58 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, to remand the matter for fresh decision.
“Its direction for fresh adjudication cannot be construed as an assumption of jurisdiction beyond its statutory competence,” a judgment issued by the two-judge FCC bench stated.
It further said, “The absence of an express provision for remand does not necessarily exclude such incidental authority where the appellate forum is empowered to set aside, vary or modify an order and remand is reasonably necessary for the effective exercise of that power.”
READ ALSO: 25pc of trade union executive members need not be workmen: FCC
The judgment held that the impugned remand order (by NIRC Full Bench), being ancillary to the appellate jurisdiction lawfully exercised, discloses no jurisdictional infirmity warranting interference by this Court (FCC).
The brief facts are that the Secretary General of the NBP Workers Welfare Union (Punjab-Islamabad CBU) sought amendments to Articles 1 and 11 of the Union Constitution, which were approved by respondent No. 2 (Registrar Trade Union) vide order dated 19.12.2023.
Aggrieved thereby, respondents Nos. 3 to 5 (opposite group members) preferred an appeal before NIRC, which was allowed vide order dated 01.07.2024, setting aside the approval and remanding the matter for fresh decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned stakeholders. The petitioner then assailed the appellate order before the Islamabad High Court (IHC), principally invoking section 58 (2) (a) of the Act, 2012. The IHC dismissed the petitions on 06.05.2026.
The petitioner contended that in the absence of an explicit provision empowering remand, the NIRC Full Bench exceeded its statutory jurisdiction, rendering the appellate order without lawful authority.
The FCC judgment said that the conferment of appellate jurisdiction carries with it such incidental and ancillary powers as are reasonably necessary for its effective exercise, unless excluded by express provision or necessary implication. It further said, “The maxim quando lex aliquid alicui, concedit, conceditur et id sine quares ipsa esse non potest” (when the law gives anything to anyone, it gives all those things without which the thing itself would be unavoidable) embodies the principle that a statutory grant includes powers indispensable to its execution.” “Accordingly, the authority to set aside, vary or modify an order may, by necessary implication, encompass the power of remand where procedural infirmities or deficiencies in factual adjudication necessitate reconsideration by the original forum.”
The FCC noted that the mere absence of an express provision authorising remand does not, ipso facto (by the fact itself), negate such power, provided its exercise remains ancillary to the appellate jurisdiction conferred under section 58 of the Act and is consistent with the statutory scheme.
The FCC judgment further noted that the Full Bench, while setting aside the order dated 19.12.2023, remitted the matter for fresh adjudication of the proposed amendments to the Union Constitution after affording an effective opportunity of hearing to all concerned stakeholders. The appellate forum neither adjudicated the rival claims on merits nor expressed any conclusive opinion affecting the substantive rights of the parties.
It said that the remand was essentially remedial in character, intended to cure procedural deficiencies and ensure compliance with the principle of audi alteram partem (let the other side be heard). Such direction, being incidental to the lawful exercise of appellate jurisdiction under section 58 of the Act, cannot be characterized as coram non judice merely for want of express statutory authorization. Any contrary construction would unduly restrict the remedial efficacy of appellate jurisdiction and subordinate substantive justice to procedural technicalities.
The judgment further observed that the controversy in the instant matter involved disputed questions concerning the Union’s elections, membership, constitutional amendments and rival claims to office, requiring examination of the relevant record and, where necessary, appreciation of evidence. Such matters fall primarily within the adjudicatory competence of the specialised statutory forum. Constitutional jurisdiction, being supervisory rather than appellate in character, cannot ordinarily be invoked to undertake a fresh determination of contested factual issues, particularly where the competent statutory forum remains seized of the controversy.
Copyright Business Recorder, 2026
Comments