1971 PLP 754 (SCMR)

SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑This leave petition is from an order of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan at Karachi, vacating the interim order granted by the Court earlier and upholding the order of the Labour Court dated 6‑8‑1971 pending decision is the Constitutional Petition. Petitioner, Messrs Haroon Industries Limited, inter alia, carried on the business of importing cars in knocked down condition or in C. K. D. condition as it is technically called, and assembling them. Due to and as a result of a Government order dated 1‑1‑1971, completely banning the import of such cars, the petitioner alleges to have terminated the services of 90 of its workers, who had thus become surplus, by a general notice as well as by a notice to individual workers, both bearing the date July 26, 1971. On the following day 100 out of 250 workers went on strike. On July 28, 1971, respondent No.1 as General Secretary of Haroon Industries Employees' Union, a Collective Bargaining Agent in the establish ment of the petitioner's industries, and as a workman employed in the said establishment, made an application before the Sind Labour Court, Karachi, under section 34 read with section 46 of Industrial Relations Ordinance,‑ 1969, and complained that the petitioner had illegally locked‑out the workers numbering about 250 with effect from July 27, 1971. It was prayed that the petitioner should be directed to lift the illegal lock‑out. The Labour Court by its order dated August 6, 1971, prohibited the continuance of the lock‑out. The petitioner, thereafter tiled the said Constitutional Petition before the High Court which is still pending decision. Along with the Constitutional Petition the petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, asking for suspension of the said order of the Labour Court pending decision in the Constitutional Petition, and on 10‑8‑1971, an ad interim order was passed by the High Court suspending the operation of the said order of the Labour Court. Ultimately, however, on the application of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 for vacating the interim order, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's said Miscellaneous Application and allowed the said application of the respondents, and vacated the said interim order and upheld the impugned order of the Labour Court dated 6‑8‑1971 until the decision in the Constitutional Petition. Learned counsel appearing in support of the petition has contended that having regard to certain opinion expressed by the Labour Court as well as by the High Court on the question of termination of the services of the aforesaid 90 workers, the impugned order of the High Court may be construed as a direc tion upon the petitioner to re‑instate the said 90 workers. As a matter of fact, it has been stated by the learned Advocate appearing as junior to Mr. Manzoor Qadir, that already steps have been taken to prosecute the petitioner for failing to re‑instate the said 90 workers. Several points have been raised before us by Mr. Manzoor Qadir in an effort to challenge the vires and the legality of the order of the Labour Tribunal. We do not think that it would be expedient to express any opinion on them at this stage, because it is bound to prejudice the decision of the Constitution petition, which is still pending in the High Court. In fact, we feel that the points involved in the stay application and the main writ petition are so inter‑twined that the time spent in the decision of the secondary matter of stay could have been more usefully utilised in disposing of the main petition itself. As we are reluctant to interfere at this stage with the interim order of the High Court, by which it has vacated the stay order in its discretion, we dismiss this petition, with the direction, however, that the aforesaid Constitution petition should be disposed of within a month from date. In the meantime, the order of the Labour Court should be confined to its limits, and no prosecution against the petitioner‑company under section 55 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, consequent on its failure to take back the 90 workers allegedly retrenched by it as surplus, would be proceeded with until the decision of the aforesaid Constitution petition. Petition dismissed.