2017 PLP 55 (PLC)

ROOH-UL-AMIN KHAN, J.

Through this single judgment, we propose to decide the instant Writ Petition bearing No.3094-P/2016 titled M/s Telephone Industries of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (TIP) through its Managing Director and 5 others v. TIP Employees and Workers through General Secretary TIP Employees and Workers Union as well as connected W.P. No.3095-P/2015 titled M/s Telephone Industries of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. (TIP) through its Managing Director and 5 others v. Irfan Ali MW TIP Haripur and 81 others through General Secretary TIP Employees and Workers Union, TIP Haripur, as in the both the petitions similar questions of law and facts are involved.

2. The subject writ petitions under Article-199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, have been filed for quashment of contempt proceedings pending adjudication before the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, at Abbottabad, being initiated against the petitioner on application of the respondents.

3. Brief but relevant facts of the case are that, the respondents had filed a petition under section 46 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Industrial Relations Act, 2010 before the Presiding Officer Labour Court at Haripur, wherein they had sought their regularization on the ground that they had served the establishment for a period of more than 03 years as temporary workers and, as such under the statute, have attained the status of permanent workers. The grievance petition was contested by the respondents (herein petitioners) by filing reply, on several legal and factual grounds. During pendency of the grievance petition, the petitioners questioned jurisdiction of the Presiding Officer Labour Court, on the ground that the establishment of TIP has attained Trans Provincial status. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court accepted the plea of the petitioners and returned the petition to the respondents for want of jurisdiction vide order dated 24.4.2014, which was assailed before the Labour Appellate Tribunal at Abbottabad, where the appeal of the workers was accepted vide order dated 29.9.2014 and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court for decision the question of jurisdiction afresh, after recording evidence of the parties, but in the meanwhile the petitioner was directed not to terminate services of Daily Wages, Contract and Temporary workers and shall pay them their due wages for the work done till the decision of the main case. On 5.11.2014, the respondents filed an application for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioner, wherein show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner with direction to submit reply within a fortnight. Needless to mention that the above mentioned COC petition is still subjudice, whereas the matter of jurisdiction has been resolved by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court vide order dated 8.3.2016.

4. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties, perusal of record would reveal that though the learned Appellate Tribunal while remitting the case to the trial Court has directed the establishment /petitioner not to terminate the services of daily wages, contract and temporary employees and to pay them their wages against the work done till decision of the case on merit, but undisputedly, the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court after recording the evidence on preliminary issue, regarding jurisdiction and placing reliance on case titled PTCL v. Member NIRC and others (2014 SCMR 353) returned the petition to the respondents for presentation before the proper forum i.e. NIRC, as the PTCL has attained the Trans Provincial status. When the forum in the Labour hierarchy was not vested with the jurisdiction, then the direction of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal would definitely be without lawful authority and jurisdiction and as such as become redundant. In such a situation disobedience or non-implementation of the judgment of the learned Appellate Tribunal, being per incuriam, and without jurisdiction would not constitute contempt of a person/ establishment, even if found guilty and such disobedience or non implementation cannot be visited with contempt punishment, moreso, when the judgment of the learned Appellate Tribunal was not only judgment per incuriam having been passed contrary to the statute, but it is also against the dictum of august Supreme Court of Pakistan handed down in the PTCL case (supra). Seen in light of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is manifest that the forum in labour hierarchy lacking jurisdiction in the matter in dispute, therefore, the order of the learned Appellate Tribunal has become redundant, whereas, the contempt proceedings initiated on the basis of a wrong order would amount to abuse of the process of the Court.

5. For what has been discussed above, this and the connected Petition No. 3095-P/2015 are allowed. The contempt proceedings pending before the learned Appellate Tribunal are quashed. However, the respondents may raise their voice before the proper forum, wherein they can make a claim for the alleged arrears of wages. ZC/349/P petition allowed.