P L D 1962 Supreme Court 364 (PLP)

CORNELIUS, C. J.‑

This order will dispose of two petitions by the Sui Gas Transmission Co. Ltd., viz:‑- Review Petition No. K‑3 of 1962, and Writ Petition No. K‑1 of 1962, in both of which, the respondents are four workmen of the Company with whom is joined the Chairman of the Central Industrial Court at Karachi. Both arise out of a decision by the said Industrial Court refusing an application by the Company for permission to dismiss the aforesaid workmen. A petition was filed in this Court, for special leave to appeal against the said decision, which was dismissed on the 12th February 1962. The application to the Industrial Court was instituted on the 14th February 1961. It was founded mainly on the ground that the local authorities had made orders of externment of the work men in question from the area at Sui where they were employed, as under, viz :‑ (1) Under section 36, Frontier Crimes Regulation, "until further orders"; and (2) Under section 5, West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, for a period of 3 months. The Company pleaded that in the face of these orders, they could not allow the workers to resume their duties, but they added that they would not "like to continue to employ them" at Sui or at any other place "in view of the apprehended breach of peace and the resultant loss to human life and property which may become Inevitable at Sul due to the presence of the respondents." The externment orders set out, with respect to each of the work man, that (a) he "has been or is about to be dismissed, removed or discharged from service by the aforesaid employer for Indiscip line and disorderly behaviour", (b) from independent enquiries, it had been learnt that "he is likely to act in a manner prejudicial to public safety and good order", and (c) that his stay In and around Sul after his removal from service would create an explosive situation endangering public; peace and tranquillity". The fact, of course, is that tire Company did not propose to dis charge these workmen, except under authority obtained from the Industrial Court. In their application to that Court however, they made no mention of any earlier acts of "indiscipline and disorderly behaviour", which found express mention in the externment orders. In the enquiry before the Industrial Court, the Company's officers gave the contrary impression, namely that these workmen were "reasonable chaps", who had not been guilty of any violence nor had they threatened any violence. The Indus trial Court came to the conclusion that "the Company was mainly responsible for the externment orders", which were obtained in order to prevent the Workmen's Union from declaring a hunger strike and taking out a procession, in support of service demands, and these were ordinary trade union activities. The conclusion was also reached that the externment orders were obtained by presenting to the authorities an exaggerated picture of the possible consequences of the hunger‑strike and the procession. The Indus trial Court accordingly refused the permission to remove which had been applied for, on the ground that the Company had tried to get rid of the workmen "by seeking intervention of the public authorities". This order was made on the 17th January 1962. Two months earlier, on the 6th November 1961, the externment orders under the F. C. R. had been set aside by the High Court of West Pakistan on a technical ground, and, .of course, by this time, the other orders under the West Pakistan Ordinance had long since expired. The consequences were (1) that the plea of externment was no longer available to the Company and (2) 'hat their allega tion of danger to life and property at Sui "due to the presence of the respondents" was not only unsupported by evidence, but was actually negatived by the admission in evidence that they were "reasonable chaps" with no inclination towards violence. The failure of the applications was therefore inevitable. It is therefore quite out of the question that the order passed by this Court dismissing the application of the Company for special leave to appeal against the Industrial Court's decision, A should be reviewed. It was clearly correct. It is equally out of the question to do so on the ground that a fresh externment order was made on the 14th February 1962, two days after the judgment of this Court was pronounced. In the writ petition, the prayer is for expungement of a number of passages from the Industrial Court's order which reflect unfavourably upon the Company's conduct and attitude in the case. Briefly, these passages have the general effect of characterizing the conduct of the Company In the matter as disingenuous. The short account of the affair which we have given above is sufficient for coming to the conclusion that the industrial & Court had before It plenty of material on which such an inference] could be based. The statement in the externment orders that the] men had been, or were about to be dismissed, and the reasons for such dismissal could only have been made upon information conveyed by the Company, Therefore, when the Company based its application for permission to dismiss exclusively on the extern went orders, and the Company's officers at the same time gave the workmen the character of being non‑violent and `reasonable chaps", it became obvious that it was trying to throw the respon sibility for the externment on the public authorities exclusively, for an action which it had itself procured, and should have been prepared to justify. We must not be understood to be laying down that this Court's power in the writ of certiorari extends to correction of orders of subordinate tribunals, by the method of expungement of passages. That question apart, it seems clear that the passages of, which expungement is sought were germane to the discussion oil the questions before the Industrial Court, and suffer from no defect in point of factual accuracy or inferential emphasis. Both petitions are accordingly dismissed. A.H. Petitions dismissed.