Through this petition under Article 199 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 orders passed by Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad dated 25.9.2004 and 18.12.2004 have been assailed primarily on the ground that the said Court lacked jurisdiction in .The matter and no such order could be passed. The learned counsel contends that since proceedings before the Labour Court are not maintainable in view of Section 2-A of Civil Servants Act, 1973, the assumption of jurisdiction by the said Court is unwarranted and proceedings before it are coram non judice.
2. The perusal of order dated 25.9.2004 would show that on a petition filed by respondent No. 2, under Section 46, of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 an injunctive order dated 10.9.2004 had been passed by the said Court regarding the oral termination order qua the said respondent.
Since the order of the Court was not being complied with by the petitioner, a compliant was filed before the Court, In reply thereto the stance of the petitioner (as noted in the order of the learned Labour Court) was that respondent No. 2, had secured the appointment through a forged appointment order, It was in such context that the learned Labour Court observed that "since the respondent has failed to comply with the order of this Court dated 10.9.2004, the complainant has brought this complaint. After having gone through the record, I find that the respondents have been afforded several opportunities to comply with the order of this Court dated 10.9.2004.
Respondent No. 2, is present in person who also undertakes for the compliance of the order of this Court dated 10.9.2004". Surprisingly the copy of the order dated 10.9.2004 and other interim order passed by the Labour Court has to been placed on record. The learned counsel however candidly states on my query that order dated 10.9.2004, was not challenged by the petitioner before any forum. Since the said order was not assailed any further by the petitioner, it has got to be honoured, obeyed and implemented, It appears that despite undertaking before the Labour Court (as noted in the order had to be passed by the said Court on 18.12.2004. It appears that the petitioner has disregarded and ignored the order passed by the Labour Court on an erroneous premises that such an order need not be complied with treating the same as nullity. The order passed by the Labour Court dated 10.9.2004 had either to be assailed through proper proceedings at the relevant time or to be complied with. But in no way it could be flouted so long as it was in the field, It was observed in Muhammad Idrish and another vs. The East Pakistan Timber Merchants' Group and another (1968 SCM R 1404) that "the appellants could not arrogate to themselves the right to decide whether the High Court's order was proper or not. It was clearly their duty to obey the order of the High Court which was made after hearing them. If there were any difficulties, they should have moved the High Court and got the order modified.
3. It is important that litigants must realize that they cannot with impunity flow orders of courts on their own construction of the orders. If doing so they clearly run the risk of becoming liable to punishment for contempt in the event of their construction turning out ultimately to be erroneous."
Such a view taken by the Apex Court despite the contention that the order passed by the Court was without jurisdiction and a nullity. The petitioner in not complying with the order of the Labour Court has thus run a risk of being convicted for contempt of Court.
4. In so far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as to the jurisdiction of the Court is concerned even the copy of the reply filed before the learned Labour Court has not been placed on record wherefrom the content of any such objection could be appreciated. However, assuming such an objection has been taken by the petitioner before the Labour Court the same undoubtedly has got to be dealt with and decided by the Court. The learned counsel has expressed apprehension that the learned Labour Court is likely to proceed against the petitioner in contempt proceedings. Suffice it to observe that in case the petitioner complies with order passed by the Labour Court and makes payment of the salaries to" respondent No. 2, I see no probability of proceedings of contempt to be taken against the petitioner. Suffice it to observe that a petitioner, who does not exhibit respect to the order passed by the Court, cannot be granted equitable relief in writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
5. The petition is accordingly dismissed in limine with the above observations.