1999 PLP 13 (PLC)

Both the writ petitions involve the similar points of law and are proposed to be disposed of with single order.

2. Respondent No. 2 in both the writ petitions filed grievance petitions under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on the ground that their services are being dispensed with on the plea of modernization of the Industrial Plant installed by the petitioner/mill. In this regard it was contended that aforesaid respondents were employed as Plant Operators on permanent basis but being members of the Trade Union have been made target of victimisation by the petitioner/mill. During the pendency of grievance petition the aforesaid respondents filed petitions for ad interim relief, which was granted vide the impugned order, whereby they were allowed to continue in service.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that impugned order dated 16‑2‑1998 is without jurisdiction and illegal. In this regard it is submitted that the Labour Court being a Tribunal has no jurisdiction to issue temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C., which to that extent is not applicable. Reliance is placed on Syed Ghulam Subhani v. Messrs Sindh Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi, reported as 1998 PLC 28 (Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh). It is, therefore, submitted that the order being illegal and void, can be challenged in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court irrespective of any other remedy available under the law.

4. I have considered the foregoing submissions and find that in view of the principle laid down in Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution, etc. v. Adamjee Cotton Mills Ltd., reported as PLD 1975 SC 32, though the matter strictly speaking does not fall to be governed by Order XXXIX, Rule 1, C.P.C. but the power to grant interim relief by suspending, wholly or partially, the operation of the order complained against is reasonably incidental or ancillary to the jurisdiction to decide the main petition before the Labour Court. Likewise, a reference to Hafiz Muhammad Ishaque, etc. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, etc. reported as NLR 1978 Labour 466 (Lahore) will make it clear that such an interim order will be within the jurisdiction of the Labour Court as regulatory measure to save the proceedings from becoming infructuous. Hence, it cannot be said at this stage that the impugned order is without jurisdiction.

5. Now coming back to the facts of the case, it may be pointed out that the remedy provided under subsection (3‑a) of section 38 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has not been availed of by the petitioner before invoking extraordinary Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The petitioner should have first exhausted the remedy stated above, which appears to be equally efficacious and effective as Labour Appellate Tribunal is vested with the power to make a corrective order after examining the correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned order. Both the writ petitions being premature are dismissed in limine with the observation that it may be open for the petitioner to avail the remedy indicated above. H.B.T./I‑63/L Petition dismissed