1998 PLP 394 (PLC)

Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 19th May, 1997. This consolidated judgment will dispose of four identical revision petitions captioned above. By way of the move aforesaid has been called in question the soundness/validity of the orders dated 7-5-1994, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore (Haji Muhammad Akram Baitu), suspending operation of the orders, rendered in September, 1993, by the General Manager (Personnel), Pakistan Railways, placing under suspension the respondents, employees of the Railways.

2. Criminal cases were registered against these persons, and the General Manager (P) asked the Divisional Superintendent, Railways, Karachi to suspend the employees, who filed grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, and the impugned orders were passed on 7-5-1994 by the learned lower Court, conceding to the employees the requisite relief, on an interim scale. The S.P. Railway Police, Karachi had addressed a letter on 3-8-1989 to the S.H.O. Railway Police, Karachi, intimating that the criminal case be treated as having been cancelled. The Railway 'Authorities' had been advised to take departmental action against the delinquents; and charge-sheets had accordingly been served on them. The officers of the Railways, who have preferred these revision petitions, had also been made aware of the sanction for prosecution of the accused officials, which was to take place in the Court of the Central Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Karachi.

3. In the course of arguments, this Court has been informed that the criminal cases against the officials had never been cancelled, in actual practice, as the observation or the opinion of the Superintendent Police. Railways, Karachi could not finally clinch the issue. Sanction for prosecution of these persons had been accorded by the Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, and it had been conveyed to the Secretary of the, Railway Board.

4. Jurisdiction of the Labour Court at Lahore, in the matter, has been taken strong exception to by the revision petitioners, who have placed hard facts before this Court. The alleged incident had taken place at Karachi, where all the accused persons were serving, at the relevant time. Their immediate officer was the Divisional Superintendent, Railways, Karachi. He, alongwith the General Manager, Pakistan Railways, had been issued grievance notices by the accused persons or the aggrieved persons from Karachi. Thus the Labour Court at Karachi should have dealt with the issue, if at all it was competent.

5. It has been urged by the petitioners, and with considerable amount of force, that the respondents were not workers but belonged to the supervisory staff, having been drawing salary in Grade

11. They were Inspectors and had been declared to be 'Employers and thus there should have been no confusion about their status. The learned lower Court, has observed, towards the end of last but one paragraph of the judgments dated 7-5-1994, that the status of the aggrieved persons, whether they were workmen or not, could only be determined with reference to the nature of their duties, and that too on the strength of the evidence to be adduced by the parties in the cases, In the circumstances, aforesaid, however, there was no need to take down, consider or discuss any evidence, for determination of the actual 'station' or 'status' of the respondents, petitioners before the Labour Court.

6. It was not a question of adjudication of the terms and conditions of the employees. They had allegedly obtained forged signatures of fictitious people, described as gangmen, and made payments to them in a criminal manner, and as such had indulged in a very serious irregularity, bordering on commission of criminal offences. Affording protection to such wrong-doers would entail in turn collapse of the whole system. The alleged incident took place in the year 1988, and it is 1997 now. The Labour Court issued a stay order, providing 'cover' to the accused officials, and the stay orders were ultimately confirmed on 7-5-1994. When the 'Authorities' of the Railways came up to this Court, by filing revision petitions challenging the Labour Court's orders dated 7-5-1994, no interim relief was conceded, as obviously a stay order issued by this Court would have amounted to acceptance of the revisions, in ultimate analysis. The result is that these officials have been enjoying all the service benefits, and have not suffered consequences of their misdeeds, either by way of their criminal prosecution, or by reason of adverse departmental action against them. Evidently, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Department, and not the employees, who must be prepared to face the departmental enquiries against them, as also the criminal cases, and would indeed not be exposed to an irretrievable injury, in the event of their indictment or departmental action against them, especially as the same would be based on the evidence to be led against the employer who will get a fair chance to defend themselves on both the planes. They should establish their innocence in the matter and cannot be permitted to go scot-free. Unfortunately, the delinquents and criminals employ courts of law as vehicles for perpetration of their evil deeds, and get protection of process of law, against what they have done in the past, and the result is that they do not get discouraged or penalised, and are rather induced to gallop along the road leading to darkness and disaster.

7. In my considered view, the reasoning recorded by the learned lower Court, in passing the impugned orders, is not quite sound and fair, and the applications under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, read with section 151, C.P.C., submitted by the officials, along with the grievance petitions, did not really merit acceptance. I would vacate the stay orders. The Labour Court's decisions dated 7-5-1994 are set aside, on acceptance of the revision petitions, although with no orders as to costs. H.B.T./909/Lb.P Revision petition accepted.