1998 PLP 1203 (SCMR)

AJMAL MIAN, J.

This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 5-4-1995 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Balochistan in Constitution Petition No.75 of 1995, filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 22-3-1995 of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Quetta, allowing respondent No.3's appeal against the order dated 27-10-1993 of the Labour Court-I, Quetta, dismissing the same by maintaining the above appellate judgment.

2. The brief facts are that WAPDA had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and had also suspended him. While the above disciplinary proceedings were pending, the petitioner filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the I.R.O., before the Labour Court-I, Quetta, for the following reliefs:-- "(a) Immediately release the petitioner from suspension. . (b) Make payment of full salary and allowances to the petitioner for the period of suspension from 3-1-1993 to this date. (c) Withdraw charge-sheets dated 3-1-1993, and 12-1-1993 and drop disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner; and (d) Not to inflict any major penalty including removal from service or dismissal from service or discharge the petitioner on the basis of charge sheets dated 3-1-1993 and 12-1-1993. (e) Any other relief appropriate in the circumstances of the case may also .be granted. , (f) Cost may also be awarded." The above application was resisted by respondent No.3 inasmuch as it was urged that the same was misconceived in view of section 17(1-A) of the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Act, 1958, hereinafter referred to as the Act, which confers jurisdiction on the Service Tribunal in respect of the employees of Wapda. However, the learned Labour Court overruled the above objection and assumed the jurisdiction by its order dated 27-10-1993, against which respondent No.3 filed an appeal, which was upheld by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal by its aforesaid judgment dated 20-3-1995. Thereupon, the petitioner filed aforementioned Constitution Petition, which has been dismissed. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.

3. In support of the above petition Mr. Muhammad Asghar Malik, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the petitioner was seeking an interlocutory relief which could not have been granted by the Service Tribunal, the Labour Court was justified to entertain the petitioner's aforesaid application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. and that the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the above order of the Labour Court. He has further urged that the High Court has also committed error by not noticing the above feature.

4. The above contentions have no force. The High Court has dilated upon the question of jurisdiction as under:-- "It would be appropriate to re-produce hereinbelow relevant para from judgment reported in 1986 SCMR page 18 which has been mainly relied by the Learned Labour Appellate Tribunal:-- "'Our conclusion, therefore, is that in view of subsection (1-B) the Service Tribunal alone had the jurisdiction to adjudicate with regard to the terms and conditions of WAPDA employees as from 30-9-1995, that jurisdiction of all other Courts Tribunals, Commissions was affected by section (1-C) but not that of Service Tribunal itself. Having answered the legal question, all the appeals and petitions shall beset down for hearing further in the light of this decision.' In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court there is hardly any scope to examine that in absence of passing a final order by the departmental authority the petitioner can invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour court. It is also a settled position of the law that the Federal Service Tribunal entertains the service appeal against the final order but it would not mean that due to non-availability of the remedy the Labour Court functioning under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 shall assume the jurisdiction. Needless to observe that for this purpose it is for the petitioner to wait till the passing of final order by the competent authority or should have submitted representation to the next superior authority for disposal of his matter expeditiously."

5. The above reasoning found favour with the learned Division Bench of the High Court does not suffer from any legal infirmity. A perusal of the reliefs which were sought by the petitioner before the Labour Court by filing aforesaid application under section 25-A of the I.R.O. indicates that he wanted to nullify the disciplinary proceedings which were initiated against him by respondent No.3. Even if there would not have been section 17(1-A) in the Act to oust the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, such an application would have been misconceived under section 25-A of the I.R.O. On merits as well, such an application could not have been entertained. The petition has no merits. Leave is refused. A.A./B-302/S Leave refused.