2015 PLP 218 (PLC)

MRS. AYESHA A. MALIK, J.

Through this petition, the petitioner has impugned the proceedings initiated by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 on an application moved by the respondent No.5.

2. The case of the petitioner is that it is a private limited company. The respondent No.5 was an employee of the petitioner and was terminated after following due process. The respondent No.5 has challenged the order of dismissal from service before the respondents Nos.1 and 2 instead of moving the proper forum. The respondent No.2 on receipt of the application from the respondent No.5 has initiated an inquiry against the petitioner. Learned counsel argued that any grievance that the respondent No.5 may have with respect to his termination from service should be pleaded before the Court of competent jurisdiction and also in terms of section 33 of the Punjab Industrial Relation Act, 2010 a worker can bring his grievance to the notice of his employer. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 have no jurisdiction in the matter and cannot initiate proceedings against the petitioner on an application of the respondent No.5.

3. Report and parawise comments have been filed by the respondents Nos.1 to

4. In terms of the report and parawise comments admittedly, the matter is under inquiry by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 on an application filed by the respondent No.5 regarding the redressal of his grievance against the petitioner. However, they have denied the verbal order of 21-6-2014 in which as per the contention of the petitioner, they threatened the petitioner to reinstate the respondent No.5 or else to face dire consequences.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file.

5. The basic issue before this Court is whether against the termination of the respondent No.5 by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 can initiate any action against the petitioner. Admittedly, an application was moved by the respondent No.5 before the respondents Nos.1 and 2 for reinstatement in service. Admittedly, in terms of the report and parawise comments filed by the respondents Nos.1 to 4, the matter is being inquired into by the respondents Nos.1 and

2. However, the report does not provide any law on the basis of which the respondents Nos.1 and 2 have exercised jurisdiction in the matter. The learned Law Officer was also unable to point out any law on the basis of which the respondents Nos.1 and 2 have exercised jurisdiction in the matter. The respondent No.5 was terminated from service by the petitioner and any grievance that he may have with respect to his termination from service should be pleaded before the competent forum. Admittedly, in terms of the report and the noting on respondent No.5's application, even though they have no power to do so. Therefore, any inquiry that they have commenced in this matter is illegal and contrary to law.

6. In view of the above, this petition is accepted and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 are restrained from initiating any proceedings against the petitioner on the application of the respondent No.5 for reinstatement. ZC/M-64/L Petition allowed.