1996 PLP 593 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑S. 34‑‑‑Interference of Labour Court with internal' working of Government Department‑‑‑Court should adopt an attitude of least interference with the internal working of Government Department and corporate bodies, because only expert could know how to run their 'business'‑‑‑In very rare cases, when the Court comes across quite glaring instances of misuse or abuse of authority or commission of abhorrent irregularity on the part of those in authority, would arise such an occasion and there would be a justification for Court to examine vires and validity of certain acts which call for judicial scrutiny. Maqbool Anees for Appellant. Abdul Sattar, Court Clerk for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1995. The United Labour Union of the Punjab Road Transport Corporation, at' Multan, claiming to be C.B.A. of the employees/workmen, had submitted a petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the Punjab Labour Court No‑.9. Multan, with a request that implementation of the policy letters issued on 16‑10‑1994 and 24‑10‑1994 by the Director (Operations), P.R.T.C., Lahore be stopped, declaring the same to be repugnant to the spirit and intention of the Labour Laws. Alongwith the petition, an application for ad interim injunction was also submitted, and the same was disposed of on 13‑8‑1995 by the Court below. This order has been impugned by way of the instant appeal.

2. The Head Office had taken notice of the fact that some District Mangers had been utilizing the services of technical staff for performing en -route duty on vehicles, although only the conductors, regularly appointed for the purpose, could do the job. This practice has\been deprecated, and the District Managers have been cautioned in the matter, by being reminded of standing departmental instructions, circulated through an earlier policy letter dated 11‑4‑1989. In the course of arguments, a question was put to the representatives of the appellant union as to why were they interested in performing duties of conductors, and their answer was that this practice would add to their income, as they would get T.A., D.A., en-route, Obviously this is a selfish end and a motivated move. The public interest must be held supreme. Only the qualified staff has to be entrusted with performance of specialized and technical assignments; and others cannot lay claim to performance of such duty as a matter of right.

3. I have always been of the view that Courts should adopt an attitude of least interference with the internal working of Government Departments and corporate bodies, since only the experts know how to run their 'business'. In very rare cases, when the Courts come across quite glaring instances of misuse or abuse of authority or commission of abhorrent irregularities on the part of those in authority, there would arise such an occasion and there would be a justification for the Courts to examine vires and validity of certain acts which call for judicial scrutiny. Now this appears to be a matter that relates to the internal working of the department, as already observed, and it is not understood as to how would interference by the Labour Court, as also by this Tribunal, be warranted.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant trade union that the directions contained in the letters in question are discriminatory, as also prejudicial against their rights, does not at all appear to be tenable. It has, as such, rightly been remarked by the learned Labour Court that no appreciable inconvenience or irretrievable injury would be caused to the appellant in the event of non‑issuance of a stay order, as prayed for words are mine). I am of the opinion that the observation made by the Court below in the impugned order to the effect that in case the conductors fall short of the required strength, or some of them are on rest, members of the technical staff may be deputed, to act as conductors does not proceed on any valid premises. I must, however, make it clear that the observations I have made, in the course of this decision, are only of tentative nature, which must not be permitted to influence the final verdict, which the learned Labour Court would be rendering, on a 'careful and close scrutiny of the entire material, that is brought on record by the parties, in the course of hearing of the main petition, and when the past practices of, the Corporation in the matter are also placed before the Court. In so far as the instant appeal is concerned, it has no force and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./798/Lb.P Appeal dismissed.