1994 PLP 1940 (CLC)

Mian Ashiq Hussain for Respondent. In this revision petition order dated 6‑3‑1994 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Lahore through which the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 8‑12‑1993 passed by the trial Court by which his application for issuance of temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit had been rejected, was dismissed has been challenged.

2. The case of the petitioner was that he was the employee of Doaba Rice Mills Ltd., Hafizabad which was owned by private owner. It was purchased by Punjab Industrial Development Board in 1975. The said Board through agreement dated 22‑2‑1979 sold the said Rice Mills to Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan.

3. The case of the petitioner is that he became the employee of Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan as such his services could be terminated by the said Corporation alone. The said Mill has been Privatized and taken over/purchased by a Private owner and he has not been allowed to continue in service.

4. During the pendency of the suit the petitioner made an application for issuance of temporary injunction to protect his employment. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court through order dated 8‑12‑1993 which has been upheld in appeal by the lower appellate Court through the impugned order dated 6‑3‑1994. Both the Courts below have held that the petitioner had not been able to show existence of prima facie case apart from the fact that it had not been shown that he would suffer an irreparable loss in case temporary injunction was not issued.

5. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by both the Courts below for if the petitioner ultimately succeeds in the suit he would be re instated in service with all benefits. The Doaba Rice Mills was admittedly originally owned by a Private owner which was purchased by Punjab Industrial Development Board from which the Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan purchased it. After the Privatization of the Mill, the question would arise as to whether the petitioner who was employee in the mill and not in any of the offices of the Corporation could claim to continue to be the employee of the . Corporation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that assuming that the petitioner was not to be treated as employee of the Rice Export Corporation but the employee of the mill working at the Project, he was entitled to golden shake hand as was offered to the other employees. This question does not concern the controversies raised in the suit. It is an independent ground and if the petitioner feels aggrieved he may seek remedy independently without prejudice to his plea raised in the suit as learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to my notice that a number of writ petitions are pending in respect of Privatized concerns as regards golden shake hand.

7. The two Courts below have not committed any material irregularity or illegality in exercise of jurisdiction vested in them under the law so far as I dismissal of application for temporary injunction is concerned. The revision petition has no force which is hereby dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑1631/L Petition dismissed.