1998 PLP 469 (PLC)

Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Respondents Date of hearing: 26th May, 1997 The revision petition is directed against an order dated 22-11-1994, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length.

2. On receiving the grievance petition, filed under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by Muhammad Ashgar, etc. against the Managing Director, and the Deputy Managing Director of the Punjab Seed Corporation, Lahore, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court had, on the first day, i.e. on 22-11-1994, entertained the petition and admitted' it to regular hearing, observing that the contentions raised by the grievance petitioners needed consideration. Operation of an order dated 6-11-1994, stated to have been issued by the Authorities of the Seed Corporation, was also suspended, and the latter were directed to give to the grievance petitioners monthly emoluments, with all the allowances, with effect from their dates of promotion, which emoluments other persons at par, namely, Irshad Nabi, etc. were getting. The Authorities of the Corporation, however, came up in revision to this forum on 19-2-1995; and status quo was directed by my learned predecessor to be maintained, by an order passed on 22-2-1995. Ever since then, it has not been possible for this Tribunal to dispose of the revision petition finally, with the result that the stalemate has persisted unabated.

3. It is to be noted that the learned Labour Court had not yet finally disposed of the application for grant of ad interim injunction, on hearing the parties or their learned counsel. The respondents were earlier in Grade-15 and were getting bonus, house rent, etc., and when they were promoted to the posts carrying Grade-16, they pleaded, they were entitled to the same allowances etc. and had also a right to associate themselves with the trade union activities, as before, claiming that they continued to be workers. They were told by Officers of the Corporation that if they wished to remain workers and to draw the same miscellaneous benefits, as before, they should seek reversion. This offer, however, was not acceptable to them. According to the establishment they were no longer workmen and they had practically disassociated themselves from the trade union activities and unconditionally taken over charge of their new assignments, which was supervisory in nature, as was indicated by the charter of duties or the job description.

4. The respondents, who were petitioners before the Labour Court, ware mainly relying on a judgment that had been rendered by this Tribunal (my learned predecessor) on 3-10-1994, affirming an earlier decision dated 4-9-1993, pronounced by Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore, holding Shahzad Babar Khan, Syed Baqar Ali Shah and Syed Shahbaz Hussain to have a right to be continuously in enjoyment of the allowances, in question. The main consideration, that had prevailed with my predecessor, was that Ajmal, Amanat, Amin, Abdul Ghaffar, etc. who had been promoted in the like manner, had been permitted to avail of the same fringe benefits, which were admissible to workmen. Learned counsel for the Corporation had probably not been able to controvert this assertion of the employees, and this had persuaded my learned predecessor, and earlier the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, to grant to the employees ad interim injunction, as prayed for by them. It is to be noted that this Tribunal's decisions are not binding on me; and again it is not known in what circumstances had such decisions been rendered in favour of the employees and what was the ultimate fate of the grievance-petition, whether the same was still pending in the Labour Court, or it had been finally decided, and what had conclusively been held by this Tribunal, and if the aggrieved party had gone to cite honourable High Court. It even remains to be ascertained, if, as maintained by Babar, Baqar and Shahbaz, respondents in Revision Petition No.511 of 1993-Lahore, or the other persons, Ajmal, Amanat, Amin, etc. finding mention in this, forum's order dated 3-10-1994, were getting the allowances, in question, in actual practice.

5. One fails to follow what irretrievable injury would visit the employees, what irreparable loss would he sustained by them, if, for the time being, they do not get those allowances, since ultimately they will be receiving the same in lump sum, if they finally succeed in the move made by them. Internal working of the organisation will, however, be disturbed or disrupted, on the contrary, if these people are allowed the allowances and subsequently they are found to be disentitled to the same. Actually, recovery of the excess amount from them by the organisation would become an uphill task, in that event. Thus, balance of convenience will certainly lean in favour of the Corporation, and it would be better to counsel the employees to hold on or halt; for sometime more, as they will be put to greater hardship if they are permitted to get the emoluments, over and above their entitlement, and subsequently they are told to return or refund the same, on being held that they are no longer workers, as they have been promoted to managerial posts carrying Grade-16.

6. The employees surely do not have a vested right to claim these allowances, and they are certainly disentitled to draw the same, so long as final determination in that regard is not made. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged, and rightly so, that pre-existing and pre-determined rights can only be enforced under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by a Labour Court. The issue involves controversial questions of fact and law, requiring elaborate inquiry, and conclusive determination in that regard can only be made, when evidence led by the parties is examined, at the time of final disposal of the main petition. On mere assumption that the employees may be treated as workmen, entitled to get these allowances, they ought not to be allowed to draw those emoluments. I am driven to the conclusion that the learned lower Court has passed almost an administrative order and has literally disposed of the whole case. Entire relief has been granted by way of interim relief. What else remains to be determined, if on entertainment of the grievance petition, on the very first day, the relief asked for is granted to the grievance-petitioners, and that too without hearing the other side?

7. On behalf of the respondents before the Labour Court, revision petitioners here, certain important objections have been raised, the same being that the main petition was not maintainable before the Labour Court, the grievance notice, as also the grievance petition, were time-barred, and a joint petition by all the aggrieved persons was not competent. Formula evolved by this Tribunal in another case was certainly not applicable here, as the facts of the two cases and the attendant circumstances may well be dissimilar, in certain measure. In passing the impugned order and in allowing grievance-petitioners, even the arrears with effect from the dates of their promotion, and thus, passing an order in the nature of status quo ante, the learned lower Court has certainly transgressed its limits and committed a material irregularity, entailing miscarriage of justice, and the order is susceptible to interference by this Tribunal, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The impugned order, by all means, merits reversal; and I would make an order accordingly. The revision petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 22-11-1994 of the Labour Court is set aside, with, of course, no order as to costs.

8. Before parting with the judgment I would like to observe that the petitioners before the Labour Court, the employees, appeared to have been ill-advised to insist on grant of ad interim injunction in their favour. Had they remained content with what they were getting as Grade-16 officers, and had allowed the grievance petition to proceed in routine, the same must have finally been disposed of long ago. They, however, seem to have become rather greedy, and when the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, who manifestly adopted a pre-employee posture and accorded them an indulgent treatment, issued in their favour the interim injunction, almost finally disposing of the main petition, the Corporation was constrained to agitate the matter before the higher forum, by way of a revision petition, disposal of which took about two and a half years, and this further delayed the matter, with the result that the respondents have probably been without additional emoluments, throughout. With patience they should now wait for the final result of their grievance petition, that will be decided by the learned Labour Court, in due course.

9. The revision petition succeeds. The parties shall appear before Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, for further proceedings on 30-6-1997, and a real effort shall be made to dispose of the petition finally by the end of the current year. H.B.T./910/Lb.P Revision petition allowed.