1984 PLP 275 (PLC)

KAMAL MUSTAPA BOKHARY, J.‑Respondent No. 1 was employed as a Manager in the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, appellant No.

1. He was dismissed from service for misconduct by the appellants. By an application filed under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 respondent No. 1 challenged his dismissal. The Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan setting aside his dismissal reinstated respondent No. 1 without back benefits. The appellants filed appeal against that order, dated 30th March, 1983, and alongwith the grounds of appeal filed an application for suspension of the order under appeal. The Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal refused to grant stay because the appeal before it could not be decided within period of 20 days and the stay ‑could not be granted beyond that period. The appellants filed a constitutional petition in the High Court against order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal refusing to suspend the order of the Punjab Labour Court pending decision of the appeal. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition in limine holding that by refusing to grant stay the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal made no error of jurisdiction. This Intra‑Court Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge in chamber. The respondents have raised preliminary objection about competency of this appeal. On behalf of respondent No. 1 it has been argued before us that Intra Court Appeal is not competent under proviso to section 3 (2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. As against this learned counsel for the appellants has argued that this Intra‑Court Appeal has arisen from the order of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal refusing to stay the order under appeal before it and that no appeal, revision or review is competent against that order of refusal.

3. Intra‑Court Appeal is provided by section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. It provides that an appeal shall lie to a Bench of two or more Judges of a High Court from an order made by a Single Judge of that Court under clause (2) of Article 201 of the Interim Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, provided that the appeal referred to therein shall not be available or competent if the application brought before the High Court under Article 201 arises out of any proceedings in which the law applicable provided for at least one appeal, revision or review to any Court, Tribunal or authority against the original order. In the instant case respondent No. 1 had filed application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordi nance, 1969 and on the acceptance of that application the present appellants bad filed appeal against it and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal pending decision of that appeal, had refused to grant stay to the appellants against which constitutional petition was filed in this Court which was dismissed in limine by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the constitu tional petition in this Court had arisen out of the proceedings before the Punjab Labour .Court in which the law applicable provided at least one appeal and the appellants had in fact filed such an appeal. A right of appeal. was available in this case and the appeal of appellants was pending when a constitutional petition was moved in this Court. This position is not controverted by the appellants. As such we are of the view that Intra Court Appeal is not competent in this case.

4. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. M. Y. H. Appeal dismissed.