1976 PLP 16 (PLC)

Nazir Ahmad Naz for Respondent. Date of hearing: 7th June 1973. An Industrial Dispute No. 8/73 between the Government Transport Service Labour Union, Lyallpur, and Punjab Road Transport Corporation. Lahore, is pending before the learned Labour Court, Central Zone, Lahore. Government Transport Service Labour Union, Lyallpur, filed an application under Order XXXIX, rule 2 read with section 151, C. P. C. praying that an order restraining Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, from terminating the services of the General Secretary of the Union and its other office‑bearers till the final adjudication of industrial dispute be issued and that Punjab Road Transport Corporation be directed to maintain status quo. The learned Labour Court issued the stay order to the effect that the services of the, General Secretary and other office‑bearers of the Union shall not be terminated without the permission of the Labour Court till the final adjudication of the Industrial Dispute.

2. Aggrieved by that order, Punjab Road Transport Corporation, Lahore, has preferred this appeal.

3. The Government Transport Service Labour Union, respondent, at the outset raised a preliminary objection that the impugned order was not appealable. In support of the above contention, reliance was placed on the judgment of the Industrial Appellate Tribunal, West Pakistan, in the case, Road Transport Corporation, Lahore v. Liaqat Ali and another (1970 P L C 266), wherein it was observed: The question was as to whether an order of Industrial Court under section 151, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 staying the operation of dismissal order during pendency of application under section 28, West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968, was appealable under section 16 of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968. Held, having regard to section 2(a) of the West Pakistan Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1968 it is very clear from the definition of award that even for an interim award it must be the determination of some industrial dispute. The determination of a dispute implies finality. The learned Chairman had not finally disposed of the dispute between the parties. He had only stayed the operation of the order whereby the respondent was dismissed from service till the disposal of the main application under section 38 of the Ordinance. An appeal under section 16 of the Ordinance is maintainable only against an award or decision of the Court under section 26, or section 37 of the Ordinance. The impugned order cannot be said to be under section 26, or section 37 of the Ordinance. It is only are interim order during the pendency of the application under section 38 of the Ordinance. In these circumstances no appeal lies.

4. It was argued that under section 37 (3) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, an aggrieved party can prefer an appeal to Labour Appellate Tribunal against an award of the Labour Court and since the impugned order is neither award nor interim award, the appeal was incompetent. According to section 2(ii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, an award means the determination by a Labour Court. Arbitrator or Appellate Tribunal of any industrial dispute of any matter relating thereto and includes the interim award.

5. In the case, Workers and Staff Union, Lyallpur Cotton Mills, Lyallpur v. The Management, Fauji Layllpur Cotton Mills Limited, Lyallpur (Appeal No. LYP‑85/72 Punjab decided on 2d‑8‑1972) I have held that such an order was appealable. The reason for arriving at the above decision was that since the application bad arisen out of a petition under section 25‑A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the decision of which was appealable the application was also appealable. In the present case the application under Order XXXIX, rule 2, C.P.C. has arisen out of an industrial dispute the award of which is appealable; the decision of such an application therefore, would also be appealable. In the judgment of the Industrial Appellate Tribunal, West a Pakistan, relied upon by the respondent, on the other hand, such an order) was held not to be appealable because it was neither an award nor an interim award. The learned counsel for the appellant, contended that in any case the impugned order was in fact an interim award because the main issue in the dispute was that during the pendency of the industrial dispute, the services of the office‑bearers of the respondent Union could not be terminated under the Road Transport Corporation, West Pakistan (Removal of Undesirable Employees) Ordinance VIII of 1965 without the permission of the Labour Court under section 47 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. In the Industrial Dispute demand No. 16 is to the following effect Show‑cause notices, issued under section 3 of Ordinance VIII of 1965 on 1‑1‑1973 or after should be withdrawn . The learned Labour Court made the following observation The learned counsel for the respondent argued that the R. T. C. (Removal of Undesirable Employees) Ordinance, 1965, being a special law, overrides the provisions contained in any other law including the provisions of I. R. O., 1969. The learned representative of the petitioner contended that section 47 of the I. O. R. guarantees a right to the office‑bearers of the union that their services shall not be terminated during the pendency of an Industrial Dispute, except with the permission of the Labour Court. He contended that the action of the respondent in issuing termination notices on the ground of misconduct to the office‑bearers of the Union is illegal and the office bearers concerned shall suffer irreparable loss if their services are terminated without a proper charge‑sheet and enquiry. He further argued that the R. T. C. (Removal of Undesirable Employees) Ordinance, 1965, is a Provincial Statute and the I. R. O. 1969 being Central Legislation, the provisions of the latter statute shall prevail. I am of the view that he has a fair question to raise as to the existence of the legal right asserted by him and has shown a prima facia case in support of the said legal right. From the above observation it is clear that the learned Labour Court is of the opinion that the provisions of section 47, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 override the provisions of Punjab Road Transport Corporation (Removal of Undesirable Employees) Ordinance, 1965. In other words, he has given an interim award, which undoubtedly is appealable. I, accordingly, overrule the preliminary objection.