2018 PLP 26 (PLC N)

JUSTICE (R) SAGHEER AHMED QADRI, CHAIRMAN.

The petitioner preferred this revision petition challenging the orders dated 29.08.2016 and 07.09.2016 passed by the learned trial court in a grievance petition filed by the respondents Nos.2 to 33 wherein they sought the implementation of an earlier judgment passed by the learned trial court whereby the services of the respondents were directed to be regularized. The said judgment was assailed by the petitioner before this Tribunal in appeal which was dismissed. According to the records as stated the said judgment was assailed before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench Bahawalpur in a writ petition which is still pending but operation of the impugned judgment was never suspended.

2. The respondents in their fresh grievance petition sought the implementation of the earlier judgment and direction to the petitioner not to discontinue their services as they apprehend so. The learned trial court after issuing notice to the petitioner, the Secretary Local Government, Government of the Punjab, Lahore, District Coordination Officer, Bahawalpur and TMA City Bahawalpur (The respondents Nos.1, 3 and 4 before the learned trial court). The learned trial court on first hearing of the petition passed the following order: 11.08.2016 Present: Mr. Shabbir Ahmed Bhutta, Advocate-counsel for the Petitioners. Heard. Fresh petition. Be registered in the relevant register.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in view of length of service and nature of their job the petitioners are worker/workmen, therefore, they cannot be expelled from service. Rather they are entitled to be regularized in service in view of the principle laid down in 2014 PLC

34. He further stated that they has not been paid to the petitioners for the month of July, 2016.

3. Notice shall issue to the respondents for 29.08.2016. Till then, the petitioners, if working, shall not be restrained illegally from performing their duty. The pay of the petitioners for the month of July, 2016 shall also be released. Announced. 11.08.2016. (Rana Abdul Rashid) District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No.8, Bahawalpur.

3. On 29.08.2016, Muhammad Usman Parokar on behalf of the petitioner/ other respondents at trial stage put in appearance and as the learned counsel for the respondents informed the learned trial court that petitioner/TMO, Saddar, Bahawalpur was creating hurdle in payment of the salaries of the respondents, therefore, the learned trial court directed to Husnain Khalid Assistant Commissioner TMA, Saddar to clear out the bills/ salaries of the respondents. Learned trial court also directed for the appearance of the petitioner in person before the court and adjourned the petition for 07.09.2016. On 07.09.2016 learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Malik Shafique Ahmed advocate appeared, however, petitioner himself did not appear in person on the pretext of illness. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the learned trial court that petitioner was not in a position to implement the earlier judgment as he had no authority to do so and for that purpose letter was sent to the Secretary Local Government for settlement of the matter of the respondents for release of their salaries etc, and sought adjournment. Learned trial court, however, disagreed with the arguments advance by the learned counsel for the petitioner and passed the following order: There is no provision in the Labour Laws i.e. Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 and Punjab Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Amendment Act, 2012 which provides that the order of this Court which has been upheld by the Learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and which has not been suspended by the Hon'ble High Court, needs a rectification from any officer on executive side. I am astonished to know that the order of this Court has been made a rolling stone between the office of the DCO and the Secretary Local Government. It appears that this is a advice on the part of TMA not to implement the order of this Court. In view of this there is no alternative but to proceed against the TMO under section 33(8) of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 to call upon him to show the cause as to why he be not punished for non compliance of the order of this Court.

4. On the next date of hearing i.e. 21.09.2016 Arshad Ghuman TMO, Saddar Bahawalpur, petitioner himself put in appearance and again reiterated the stand and showed inability to implement the earlier judgment passed by the learned trial court on the pretext that he had no authority either to regularize the services of the respondents or to release their pay and for that purpose letter was sent to the Secretary Local Government for grant of sanctioning of the posts as well as permission to release the pay. The learned trial court, however, disagreeing the oral arguments passed the following order dated 21.09.2016:

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since the respondent-TMO is adopting dilatory tactics to avoid the implementation of the order of this Court, therefore, he is liable to be proceeded under section 33(8) of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 regarding which he has already been issued a notice under section 33(8) of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. He further argued that TMO is employer of petitioners so he should pass an order to regularize the petitioners in accordance with the decision of this Court. He further argued that petitioners are poor people and they are performing duty but wages are not being paid by TMO respondent to them.

3. There is no provision of law in Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 or Punjab Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Amendment Act, 2012 which provides that decision of Labour Court shall be implemented subject to the approval by Secretary Local Government. If the TMO has sent request to the Secretary Local Government for amending schedule of employees, it is his headache. He may, if so likes can brief the Secretary in this regard to adjust the petitioners in terms of the decision of this Court. Court has nothing to do with it. TMO is directed to issue order regularizing the services of petitioners, in terms of the decision of this Court, and also release their pay as regular employees, till the next date of hearing. Punishment to the TMO for non-compliance of the order of this Court shall be decided on the next date of hearing i.e. 20.10.2016. Compliance report shall be submitted in this Court on 20.10.2016, failing which order under section 33(8) of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, shall be passed against him. TMO shall personally appear on 20.10.2016. Feeling aggrieved the petitioner has preferred this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner at preliminary stage argued that both the impugned orders dated 07.09.2016 and 21.09.2016 passed by the learned trial court are illegal, without any lawful justification as the learned trial court had no jurisdiction to pass any such order; that the learned trial court exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it thus committed gross illegality. Learned counsel while referring the instructions issued under the Local Government Ordinance, Government of the Punjab dated 18.06.2001 submitted that Tehsil Municipal Officer and Tehsil Town Nazim were empowered for disbursement of the salaries of the staff, hence petitioner in these circumstances cannot be compelled to release the salary of the respondents; that direction for implementation of the earlier judgment passed by the learned trial court in these circumstances is illegal, therefore, both the impugned orders are illegal and are liable to be set-aside. It was prayed that while admitting this revision petition both the orders passed by the learned trial court be suspended. 4(sic) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at preliminary stage and perused the records available on the file minutely. 5(sic) There is no denial to the fact as it was himself argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier grievance petition filed by the respondents Nos.2 to 33 was allowed by the learned trial court whereby their services were directed to be regularized and their salaries to be released accordingly. Admittedly, the said judgment was upheld by this Tribunal and petitioner had assailed the said judgment in a writ petition before the honourable Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench Bahawalpur but operation of the impugned judgment so far has not been suspended.

6. Although the respondents Nos.2 to 33 at trial stage had impleaded the Secretary Local Government, District Coordination Officer, Bahawalpur and TMA City Bahawalpur as respondents Nos.1, 2 and 4 respectively but the petitioner has not impleaded them either the petitioner or the respondents in this revision petition, hence filing of this revision petition itself is defective.

7. As far as merits of the revision petition are concerned, the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relates and challenging to the earlier judgment passed by the learned trial court as upheld by this Tribunal whereby the services of the respondents were directed to be regularized and further direction to release their salaries. As earlier grievance petition was allowed by the learned trial court and upheld by this Tribunal in appeal, hence at this stage merits or demerits of earlier litigation cannot be challenged or objected in these proceedings. As the petitioner filed a writ petition which is sub-judice before the honourable High Court, hence the petitioner may agitate these arguments in those proceedings and not before these forums.

8. There is no denial on part of the learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents are still performing their duties with the petitioner department but their salaries are not being released on one or other pretext as well as their services are not being regularized. Although the present grievance petition before the learned trial court was adjourned for 07.09.2016 and 21.09.2016 but the petitioner did not submit any written reply of the petition and on each of the occasion his learned counsel tried to get delay and avoid to implement the judgment passed by the learned trial court. Under section 33(8) of PIRA, 2010 it is provided: Subject to the decision of the Tribunal, if a decision under this section given by the Labour Court is not given effect to or complied with within seven days or within the period specified in the decision, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to five hundred thousand rupees or with both.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner although argued vehemently that the petitioner has informed the Secretary Local Government in writing and sought sanctioning of the posts and provisions of the budget for release of the salaries of the respondents but it is a matter between the petitioner and the Provincial Government/ the concerned official but as the judgment passed by the learned trial court has been upheld by this Tribunal, therefore, under the provisions mentioned above the learned trial court lawfully can implement the judgment. Hence, the exercise of jurisdiction under section 33(8) of the Act ibid for the implementation of the judgment by the learned trial court is lawful, therefore, it cannot be termed as illegal exercise of powers vested in a court, hence as no illegality or error in exercise of jurisdiction is pointed-out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, in these circumstances, no occasion arises for the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under section 47(5) of the Act, ibid by this Tribunal.

10. The petitioner may approach the learned trial court on the date fixed and make its submission preferably in writing so the matter be resolved. This revision petition without any merits is hereby dismissed in-limine. File be consigned to the records room after its due completion. JK/19/PLT Petition dismissed.