1990 PLP 207 (PLC)

Muhammad Asghar Malik for Respondent No.

7. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1989. In June, 1981 Ashfaq Ahmad respondent No.3, hereinafter referred to as the respondent, was serving as an Assistant in Sheikhupura Main Branch of the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd, the petitioner herein. On 3‑6‑81 he was served with a charge‑sheet (Annexe) for misconduct. A domestic enquiry followed and ultimately the respondent was dismissed from service on 18th January, 1982.

2. The respondent took his grievance arising out of his dismissal to the learned Punjab Labour Court No.3, Feroze Wala, under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance. The grievance petition was resisted by the petitioner‑bank. After recording the parties' evidence and after hearing them, the learned Labour Court ordered the reinstatement of the respondent with back benefits.

3. The petitioner‑bank preferred an appeal before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, but during the pendency of the appeal, the present writ petition was filed and it was averred that the remedy by way of appeal before the Tribunal was not an adequate remedy as the Tribunal could not suspend the enforcement of the order of reinstatement for a period exceeding 20 days.

4. In the present‑ writ petition, it was mainly urged that the terms and conditions of service of the respondent as also other employees of the nationalized banks and financial institutions were governed by the award of the Wage Commission. Such an award could only be enforced by the N.I.R.C. and thus the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter. This contention found favour with a learned Division Bench of this Court and consequently the writ petition was allowed. The respondent, however, preferred an appeal before the learned Supreme Court of Pakistan. His appeal has been accepted and it has been held by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan that an award of the Wage Commission is enforceable under section 25‑A of the Ordinance, before the Labour Court. The writ petition however, has been remanded for deciding the other issues.

5. It is, however, noteworthy that in the meantime, the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal vide its judgment dated 27th March, 1984 has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner‑bank and thus the order of reinstatement of the respondent with back benefits passed by the Labour Court has been upheld.

6. Obviously after the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal through its judgment, dated 27‑3‑1984 the judgment of the learned Labour Court has merged into that of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner has not challenged the judgment of the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal through the present writ petition. The petitioner has simply assailed the judgment of the Labour Court, which is no more in the field after dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner by the Labour Appellate Tribunal. In FA Khan v. Government of Pakistan (P L D 1964 S C 520), it has been held that when the appeal was decided by the Appellate Court, the original order of the trial Court disappeared and merged into the Appellate order of the Appellate Court and, therefore, challenge could be thrown to the order of the Appellate Court and not to that of the trial Court. In case of National Bank of Pakistan v. Mian Muhammad Afzal etc. 1988 P L C 528, it has been held by this Court that after the decision having been made by the learned Appellate Tribunal the order of the Labour Court merged into the order of the Tribunal to which finality is attached under section 38(3) of the Ordinance and where the Bank has not assailed the order of the Tribunal, the writ petition becomes infructuous.

7. In the present case, as already observed, the petitioner bank has not assailed the order of the Tribunal through the present writ petition. The bank has simply impugned the judgment of the Labour Court which is no more in the field and thus the present writ petition has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M/1569/L Petition dismissed.