2005 PLP 379 (PLC)

The brief facts out of which present writ petition arises are that respondent No.2 filed petition under section 49 (4) (e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 along with an application for ad interim relief before the Member, National Industrial Relations Commission at Lahore Bench, which was fixed before Syed Altaf Hussain, Member, who granted restraining order in favour of respondents Nos.2 to 9 vide order dated 5-6-2003. The petitioners being aggrieved filed W.P No.13890 of 2003 before this Court wherein various notices were issued to respondents Nos.2 to 9 but respondents Nos.2 to 9 failed to appear and consequently, this Court suspended the operation of the order dated 5-6-2003 passed by the aforesaid member, vide order dated 14-5-2004 and the main writ petition was adjourned. Subsequently respondents Nos.2 to 9 filed another petition under section 49 (4)(e) read with section 63 (1)(a)(b)(c) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, which was fixed before Syed Akhtar Naqvi, member of the aforesaid Commission at Lahore instead of Syed Altaf Hussain member, at Lahore. Respondents Nos.2 to 9 did not mention a single word qua filing of writ petition by the petitioners before this Court and the order passed by this Court vide order dated 14-5-2004 in Writ Petition No. 13890 of 2003, therefore respondents No.2 to 9 secured restraining order from the aforesaid member of commission by concealing the material facts in the contents of petition. The respondent No.1 has no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the matter in view of newly added section 2-A of the Service Tribunal Act. In support of his contention, he relied upon unreported judgment passed in W.P. No.21283 of 2002 and Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others v. Muhammad Zaman Khan and others (1997 SCMR 1508).

2. Notices were sent to respondents Nos.2 to 9 who are present in person. They submit that they did not receive any notice issued by this Court in earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner. They further submit that member National Industrial Relations Commission has jurisdiction and the Constitution petition is liable to be dismissed. They further submit that action of petitioner is also hit by Article 25 of the Constitution as the petitioner have reinstated Mr. Atta Ullah and Mr. Vivian Chaman, therefore, the petitioners are duty bound to proceed in accordance with law. They further submit that in case restraining order in this petition is allowed then the petitioners will terminate services of the respondents Nos.2 to 9.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.

4. I have gone through the petition filed by respondents Nos.2 to 9 before member National Industrial Relations Commission which was fixed before Syed Akhtar Naqvi member who passed the impugned order against which the petitioner filed instant petition. Present writ petition does not contain a single word qua filing any petition by the respondents Nos.2 to 9 which was fixed before the member of National Industrial Relations Commission Syed Altaf Hussain which order was suspended by this Court vide order dated 14-5-2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 13890 of 2003, this fact alone is sufficient to show that respondents Nos.2 to 9 did not approach the member of Commission with clean hands. The question of law regarding assumption of jurisdiction by the member has been decided vide judgment dated 16-12-2002 passed in Writ Petition No-21283 of 2002 by mentioning all the case-law almost on the subject. In this view of the matter this petition is accepted, impugned order is set aside. The respondents are well within their right to avail remedy before the competent forum/competent authority in case the respondents avail proper remedy then that will be decided by the competent authority in accordance with law.

5. With these observations this petition is disposed of. H.B.T./C-113/L Petition accepted.