1999 PLP 9 (PLC)

PLD 1975 SC 450 ref. Basit Babar Chughlai for Petitioner. Heard.

2. Admittedly Iqbal Hussain respondent No.2 is an employee of United Bank Limited and was transferred to Dera Nawab Sahib from Bahawalpur. Whole trouble seems to have emanated there from. Statedly he stands demoted as messenger, as a result of disciplinary proceedings, details whereof find mention in paragraph No. 5 of the petition.

3. Feeling aggrieved of his transfer, respondent No.2 has instituted a grievance petition in Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur. He has also resorted to a complaint under section 53 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with section 7 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. On the basis of statement of complainant in summary and preliminary inquiry conducted therein, process stands issued against the petitioner.

4. Annoyed over it, he has challenged, brought into question and assailed an order dated 13‑8‑1996 whereby his personal appearance has been required therein. Such proceedings have been sought to be declared as illegal, without lawful authority and abuse of process of law on the grounds enumerated in paragraph 9 of the petition.

5. Reiterating the same and other factors embodied in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has endeavoured to argue that the proceeding in consequence whereof process has been issued against the petitioner patently reflect abuse of process of law inasmuch as not a single instance of "unfair labour practice" has been ascribed to him. It has, therefore, been canvassed that proceedings are not tenable and as such the order complained of, has been termed to be coram non-judice. Also it has been pointed out that similar complaint under section 60 of I.R.O. met the fate of dismissal on 13‑2‑1997. Learned counsel for the petitioner has remarked that the same should have operated as bar to subsequent proceedings apparently, one, in the series of tactics being employed to pressurise and harass the petitioner, who, has the prerogative to transfer respondent No.2 in wake of exigencies of his service. With reference to PLD 1975 SC 450 and unreported judgment in Writ Petition No.533/96/BWP, he has contended that the matter is liable to judicial review as "Labour Court" has no jurisdiction in the matter and the jurisdictional defect is apparent on the face of record.

6. But there can be no cavil with the fact that the respondent No.2, being a workman, within the definition of section 2 of I.R.O. can legitimately invoke the jurisdiction of Labour Court to seek redress of his grievances. He has undoubtedly agitated the matter before proper forum and which rather falls within exclusive domain of Court concerned. Hence, it is not conceivable as to how the order passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction has been dubbed and branded to be coram non-judice.

7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the same is an interlocutory order. Also there can be no denying the settled proposition that Writ of Certiorari is not entailed to interlocutory proceedings and judicial review thereof, in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court is not attracted particularly when no defect or error touching the jurisdiction of the Court or Special Tribunal, seized of the matter, is spelled out.

8. Mere fact that a complaint under section 60 of I.R.O. was turned down has no bearing and rather serves as embargo to another complaint and proceedings there under. Rather it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to harp a different tune by acclaiming the order of the same Court to be correct in all respects in identical proceedings.

9. As a sequence thereto, petition patently misconceived and figment of imagination of petitioner merits dismissal and is hereby dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑690/L Petition dismissed.