1998 PLP 240 (PLC)

This Revision Application is directed against the order of Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi granting temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2.

2. Sultan Muhammad was employed as a guard with Habib Bank Limited. At the time of joining he mentioned his date of birth as 31-12-1936 but at the time of retirement he informed the Bank through letter dated 10-12-1995 that this date of birth was given by mistake and actual date of birth was in the year 1944. This claim having been rejected by the Bank, the guard Sultan Muhammad filed his grievance petition before the Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi. Pending these proceedings the petitioner also moved an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 for stay of retirement order pending the proceedings under 25-A of the I.R.O. The learned Labour Court found that the petitioner had an arguable case which required consideration and if the petitioner was retired he would suffer irreparable loss the balance of convenience being in his favour. He accordingly granted the stay till final disposal of the case. Against this order the Habib Bank has preferred this Revision Application before this Tribunal.

3. The main contention of Mr. Shahid Anwar Bajwa in this Revision Application is that the Labour Court being a Tribunal of limited jurisdiction does not enjoy all the powers of a Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code and the order is, therefore, illegal, void and without jurisdiction.

4. The powers of Labour Court are defined under section 36(2) in respect of deciding industrial disputes. Section 36(2) provides that a Labour Court shall for the purpose of adjudicating and determining any industrial dispute be deemed to be a Civil Court and shall have the same powers as are vested in such Court under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 including the powers of:- (a) enforcing attendance of witnesses; (b) compelling production of document; and (c) issuing commission.

5. This subsection thus defines the powers for the purpose of adjudicating and determining an industrial dispute. The powers are mentioned for enforcing attendance of witnesses, production of documents and issue of commission. These powers are not exhaustive but under the rules of Interpretation of Statutes such other powers as are ejusdem generis are also included. The powers are, therefore, very much limited and they relate to the procedure while trying a case on an industrial dispute. The power of issuing temporary injunction is not mentioned anywhere in the I. R. O.

6. The earliest case in this respect is of Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited v. Sindh Labour Court, Karachi reported in 1973 PLC

111. It was held by our eminent Judges Tufail Ali Rehman, C.J. and Fakhruddin Ibrahim, J. that Labour Court had no authority to pass order in the nature of interim injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C, restraining the employer from terminating the services of employee/applicant. This decision appears to have been consistently followed by all other Labour Tribunals and even High Court and the Supreme Court. It was held by our own Tribunal with Z.A. Channa as the Chairman, that Labour Court is not entitled to exercise powers under Order XXXIX of Civil Procedure Code restraining a domestic enquiry in case reported in 1981 PLC 737; Abdul Razzak v Divisional Mechanical Engineer Pak. Railways. This observation was repeated that Labour Court was not invested with all powers of Civil Court under the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 but only with the procedural powers required for adjudication and determination of industrial dispute. 6-A. In similar case it was held by the Sindh High Court by B.G.N. Kazi, J. that Labour Court was not empowered to issue injunction (1980 PLC 339 National Bank v. Third Sindh Labour Court). This was followed by the Punjab High Court by Shafiur Rahman, J. in Dr. Aijaz Hussain Qureshi v. N.I.R.C. PLD 1976 Lah. 611 on the ground that if the power to grant relief ad interim is not expressly conferred nor followed by necessary implication and is neither incidental nor ancillary to the powers so possessed it is difficult to sustain it by reference to any inherent powers of a Tribunal. The Tribunal being a creation of statutes having the limits of its jurisdiction defined cannot be attributed any such reserve of inherent powers.

7. Mr. Syed Safdar Hussain for the respondent guard has on the other hand argued the retirement of the guard could be stayed pending the adjudication of the dispute about his date of birth, under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 but he must first show that these powers under the Civil Procedure Code are enjoyed by the Labour Court or Tribunal. Under the I.R.O. section 36 gives limited powers of Procedure for hearing disputes under 25-A of the I.R.O. but as held by the Lahore High Court the Tribunals cannot go beyond the limited powers expressly granted to them under the I.R.O. This view has been taken by this Tribunal in a good number of cases by different judges from the time of Justice (Retd.) Z.A. Channa to Agha Ali Hyder and the present Presiding Officer.

8. In the result the Revision Application is allowed and the order passed by the Labour Court under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. is set aside. H.B.T./180/Lb.S Revision allowed.