1987 PLP 645 (PLC)

‑‑Art.199‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.25‑A‑ Constitutional petition against interlocutory order of Labour Court‑ Maintainability of‑‑Constitutional petition against interlocutory order when main case was still at preliminary stage, held, could not be entertained‑‑Petitioner could raise any objection to maintainability of grievance petition or jurisdiction of Labour Court which would be decided on merits in accordance with law by such Court‑‑Constitutional petition against interlocutory order, being devoid of merit was dismissed by High Court. Muhammad Yawar Ali Khan for Petitioner. Respondent No.2 moved a grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, before Punjab Labour Court No.9, at Multan, challenging the action of the petitioner for his removal from service. Petitioners instead of filing written statement moved a miscellaneous application for adjournment of the case sine die for the reasons that according to judgment of High Court reported as 1985 P L C 1053, the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was ousted. It was further averred that in a number of such cases the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Court concerned had adjourned the case to await the decision of the Supreme Court where the appeal against the said reported judgment was pending disposal.

2. The Punjab Labour Court by its order, dated 8‑12‑1986, dismissed the application and directed the petitioners to file a reply. It was observed by the Court that the case in hand was not covered by the said reported judgment. The petitioners filed revision petition before respondent No.1 which was dismissed on the short ground that the matter of adjournment of case was within the discretion of the Labour Court, therefore, no revision was competent as the order has been passed by the lower Court which was within its discretion. It was also observed that the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter is not likely‑ to be delivered soon. However, respondent No.l did not record any finding where the case was covered by the said reported judgment of the High Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that it was in the interest of justice and fitness of things that the case should have been adjourned sine die. I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition against an order which is interlocutory and the main case is still at preliminary stage of filing the reply by the petitioners. They may raise any objection to the maintainability of petition of jurisdiction of the Labour Court which shall be decided on their merits in accordance with law. Learned counsel expressed the apprehension that the Labour Court in its order, dated 12‑1‑198 having held that the said judgment was not applicable to the present case, therefore, the petitioners may not be allowed to urge the point of jurisdiction'. The apprehension is not well founded. The finding of the Labour Court is of tentative nature and no doubt if in the written reply any concrete objection is taken to the maintainability of the petition of respondent No.2 or the jurisdiction of the Court, it shall be considered on merits in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for an observation that the Labour Court should treat and decide the said issue as preliminary issue. No such observation is necessary as after filing written statement such request can be made to the Court concerned who according to law shall take a decision in this respect.

4. The writ petition has no merits, as no interference is called for at this stage, therefore, it is hereby dismissed in limine subject to observation, made above. A.A. P‑9/Lb. Petition dismissed.