1997 PLP 216 (PLC)

Ghulam Mustafa, Court Clerk for Respondent. Date of hearing: 30th June; 1996. By an order dated 24‑4‑1996, learned Punjab Labour Court No.9, at Multan, had rejected the request of the petitioner for issuance of a stay order; and he has preferred the present revision petition.

2. Muhammad Khalil had been working as Conductor with the P.R.T.C in its Intercity Depot, Sahiwal, and he was dismissed from service on 26‑5‑1986. He filed a grievance petition, which was accepted by the Labour Court on 25‑2‑1987, P.R.T.C.'s appeal against which order was dismissed by this Tribunal on 16‑5‑1987. While disposing of Writ Petition No‑266 of 1988, filed by the P.R.T.C., an honorable Judge of the High Court, by an order announced on 9‑4‑1995, set aside both the aforesaid decisions and remanded the case to the Labour Court for its decision afresh, in accordance with the principles of law enunciated and observations recorded in the course of the judgment.

3. The same Presiding Officer of Punjab Labour Court, Multan, who had, earlier, on 25‑2‑1987, accepted the grievance petition of Muhammad Khalil Conductor, ordering his reinstatement in service, has somehow not found it possible to concede to him the interim relief, he had prayed for, in the from of an injunction pendente lite. I will not advert to the facts and discuss the merits. I will confine my finding, respecting the petitioner's prayer for issuance of stay order alone.

4. The learned Presiding Officer has observed, in categorical terms, that the petitioner has a strong and sound case, and the balance of convenience also leans in his favour, as in the event of his ouster from service, he will be exposed to an irretrievable injury. At the same time, however, he has said that there is no likelihood of the petitioner suffering an irreparable loss, as he would be able to obtain all the back benefits, in case he emerges as successful ultimately in the litigation. Now such an observation must be taken to be a contradiction in terms. It is not difficult to perceive the magnitude of embarrassment and agony, a poor employee is subjected to, if he is rendered jobless over any length of period. This litigation has already stretched over several years, and it is not known how long more will it take to conclude. Speaking in comparative terms, the establishment' will not stand to lose much, if it continues to part with the emoluments in favour of the employee, as remuneration for the services rendered by him; and care can certainly be taken, especially by the establishment' that the litigation is not unduly prolonged, but is brought to an end at an early date.

5. On considerations of equity, justice and fair play, and with due regard for the principles or rules of law, being followed by all the Courts, from top to bottom, respecting prayer made by aggrieved litigants for grant of temporary injunction, the petitioner, I do not think, is disentitled to the relief, he had asked for from the lower Court. It seems that the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court has been discouraged or subdued, in certain degree, by the remand of the case, following rescission of his initial orders dated 25‑2‑1987, even though affirmed in appeal by this Tribunal, and he has preferred to shed his familiar attitude of magnanimity or sympathy towards downtrodden and poverty‑sticken members of the labour class. The honorable High Court has not expressed itself against reinstatement of the employee but has only highlighted the correct course of proceedings in Labour Courts, as also salutary interpretation or construction of Labour Laws, with reference to the manner and standard of evidence required in cases being conducted by these forums.

6. I would set aside the impugned order and accept the revision petition, although with no order as to costs. The petitioner will continue to be in service, till such time his case is not finally decided. I shall, however, emphasize, keeping in view the protracted history of the litigation, that the same shall be disposed of by the Labour Court at the earliest, by giving adjournments of shortest possible duration and avoiding all unnecessary adjournments, which any party to the litigation may resort to. The parties shall appear for further proceedings in the Court below on 23‑7‑1996. H.B.T./818/Lb.P Revision accepted.