1981 PLP 737 (PLC(CS))

‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 36 (2) read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, rr. I & 2‑Temporary injunction‑‑Labour Court not invested with all powers of civil Court under Civil Procedure Code, 1908 but only with procedural powers required for adjudica tion and determination of industrial dispute‑Grievance petition under S. 25‑A‑To be heard and decided as an industrial dispute-- Railway employee filing grievance petition against order of his promotion on plea that promotion will involve loss of running allowance ‑ Temporary injunction in such case, held, not necessary for adjudicating and determination of dispute‑Labour Court, held, had no jurisdiction to pass temporary injunction against Pakistan Railway in matter of such promotion order. Brooke Bond (Pakistan) Ltd. IV. IInd Labour Court P L D 1973 Kar. 618 fol. A. M. Javed for Appellant. S. M. A. Alvi for Respondent. Date of hearing : 8th October, 1980. Separate applications under section 25‑A, I. R. O., were filed by 3 employees of the Pakistan Railways, praying that the order, dated 8th May, 1980, issued by the Railway Department, promoting them to a higher cadre, be declared as invalid and without lawful authority. These applications were made in view of the fact that on promotion the appli cants would lose financially due to being deprived of the running allow ance which they are receiving in their present assignments. Alongwith these applications, the three applicants also submitted applications under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. praying for the issuance of a tem porary injunction restraining the Railway administration from promoting the applicants during the pendency of their grievance petitions. The lear ned the Labour Court, vide its order, dated 12th June, 1980, rejected the applications made by two of the applicants, namely, Merajuddin and Mureed Mussain, but granted the application for temporary injunction made by respondent Abdul Razzaq, on the ground that there was a sort of settlement between him and the Railway administration that in case he did not opt for promotion. He was to refund the amount incurred by the Department as expenses upon him for undergoing training in P. VI Course. Merajuddin and Mureed Hussain preferred appeals against the rejection of their applications for the grant of temporary injunctions. The said appeals were dismissed as they were not pressed and withdrawn by them. However; since there was a common order passed in respect of them and respondent Abdul Razzaq, the operation of the impugned order, so far as it concerned respondent Abdul Razzaq, was ordered to be stayed by this Tribunal and a notice was issued to him, in exercise of the suo motu powers of revision of this Tribunal, to show cause why the stay order be not revised and set aside.

2. I have heard Mr. Alvi, who appeared for the Railway adminis tration, and Mr. M. Javed, the learned counsel for respondent Abdul Razzaq. The crucial question falling for consideration in this case is whether the learned Labour Court was empowered to grant a tem porary injunction while adjudicating upon a grievance petition. A some what similar issue arose in the case of Brooke Bond (Pakistan ) Ltd. v. Second Labour Court (P L D 1973 Kar. 618). In that case, it was held by a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court that subsection (2) of section 36, I. R. O. does pot confer upon a Labour Court, while adjudicating and determining an trial dispute, all the powers of a civil Court under the C. P. C. but only such of them as may be described as procedural, i.e. as are re quired for the purposes of adjudication and determination and that it was clearly not necessary. in order to be able to adjudicate and determine an industrial dispute that pending the adjudication and determination, a party be restrained from giving effect to the kind of order for which complaint was made to the Labour Court. It may be pointed out that a grievance application under section 25‑A, I. R. O. is to be heard and decided as if such matter were an industrial dispute. Relying on the above decision, I am of the view that the learned Labour Court did not have jurisdiction to pass an order restraining the Railway administration from giving effect to the promotion order of the respondent and the other employees.

3. For the reasons stated by me above, I would set aside the impu gned order of the learned Labour Court restraining the respondents from giving effect to the promotion order in respect of respondent Abdul Razzaq during the pendency of the grievance petition filed by him. As grievance petitions are required by law to be disposed of within one week of the filing thereof, the learned Labour Court is directed to give top priority to the three grievance petitions filed by Abdul Razzaq Mureed Hussain and Merajuddin and dispose them of as expeditiously as possible.