1984 PLP 429 (PLC)

lqbal Haider Zaidi for Respondent No.

1. Mian Muhammad Saleem for Respondent No.

2. Date of hearing : 4th February, 1984. The above‑captioned revision has been lodged by the Ghee Corpora tion intimating that the order, dated 17th January, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore is illegal and unjustified. Prayer for setting aside the impugned order and dismissing the grievance petition of respondent No. 1 has been made.

2. Khalid Pasha, respondent No. 1, was employed by Punjab Indus trial Development Board, respondent No.

2. His services were terminated by the said establishment on 19th July, 1975 and he challenged it in a grievance petition lodged against the P. I. D. B. on 29th August, 1975, Direction for re‑instatement was passed in his favour and against the P. I. D. B. on 19th October, 1977 and the matter went to the High Court in a writ petition. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 made statement that respondent No. I would not take benefit of the order of re‑instatement passed against the P. I. D. B. The writ petition was disposed of. The Government had created another Board called Punjab Vegetable Ghee Board under section 7 of the Hydrogen Vegetable Oil Industry (Control and Development) Act, 1973 and the newly created Board took over the managment and control from the P.

1. D. B. When the case was pending in the trial Court an application for impleading the P. V. G. B. was made. After the decision of the writ petition, the case was remanded by the Court vide order, dated 1st January, 1976 in appeal for the decision of the said application but in the order of remand it was said that the question of impleading P. V. G. B. and Ghee Corporation be decided. Notice was issued to both of them. Again revision was lodged to this Tribunal on the ground that the application for impleading as party had already been decided. The case was sent back holding that no new application for impleading as party could be made and direction was issued that the matter be decided in compliance with the order of this Tribunal, dated 1st January, 1978. The petitioner was impleaded as party and hence this revision.

3. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that only factory has been given under the control of the petitioner and not any establishment, therefore, the petitioner is not liable to reinstate respondent No.

1. The line of argument is that no establishment has been transferred nor any management has been brought under the petitioner as no Managing Director was appointed by the Central Government. It has also been argued that according to section 23 (2) of the Hydrogen Vegetable Oil Industry (Control and Development) Act, 1973, cases pending with the transferred establishments can continue and as before institution of the instant grievance petition, Punjab Vegetable Ghee Board and Ghee Corporation had come into existence, the petitioner is not liable to re‑instate respondent No. I by implementing the order passed before the petitioner took charge. Certain facts are such that they were to be proved but certain facts have been incorrectly stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This is wrong that at the time the management was transferred to the petitioner, the case of respondent No. 1 was not pending. It was very much pending. According to Notification No V. Q. 13 (5)/76, the management of Punjab Vegetable Ghee and General Mills Limited was transferred to the petitioner on 11th January, 1977 (the date of notification), whereas the grievance petition was brought by respondent No. 1 on 29th August, 1975, which is still pending. It is thus clear that in the pendency of the grievance petition the management of Punjab Vegetable Ghee was transferred to the petitioner and according to section 23(2) of Act LXV of 1973, the grievance petition is to be contested by the petitioner. So far as Punjab Vegetable Ghee Board is concerned, the date of its coming into existence, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is 26th July, 1975. No document has been shown by the learned counsel from the file, so it cannot be said that actually the date of the coming into being of the said Board is 26th July, 1975. Notification referred to above does not disclose if prior to it the Ghee Industries were under the control of Punjab Vegetable Ghee Board. So far as the petitioner is concerned, this appears to be a case of devolution of interest in the pendency of the case. However, evidence is required as to when Punjab Vegetable Ghee Board took charge of the establishment in which respondent No. 1 was employed. Equally there is no force in the argument that Punjab Industrial Development Board or Punjab Vegetable Ghee Board is not covered by the definition of `establishment'. Since in the notification the transferred industries are mentioned as 'establish ments', this is prima facie sufficient for the purpose of impleading the petitioner as a party.

4. It has also been argued that since in the application for implead ing as party, the petitioner was not mentioned, no question of its implead ing as party could arise and thus the impugned order is not maintainable. This is true that the petitioner's name does not appear nor Punjab Vegetable Ghee Board is mentioned but since my learned predecessor directed that the question of impleading Punjab Vegetable Ghee Board and the petitioner as party be decided, the learned lower Court had decided the point. I have no jurisdiction to go behind or review the order passed by my learned predecessor.

5. As a result, the revision is accepted arid setting aside the impugned order, the case is again remanded with the direction that after allowing opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence on the point of impleading Punjab Vegetable Ghee Board and the petitioner, as party the question be redecided. A. E. Revision accepted.