1. MRS, QAISER IQBAL, J.--- The petitioner has challenged the impugned order, dated 15th August, 2002 passed by Vth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi whereby an application under section 47 of Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 preferred by the respondent was allowed.
2. ' Brief facts of the case are that the respondent is an establishment covered under Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969, the petitioner is a worker Rice Examiner and also member of the office- bearer as General Secretary of S.G.S. Worker Front. The union was registered in the year, 1994. The registration of the Union was challenged in the High Court, union resisted Industrial dispute filed an application under section 32(1)A of the Industrial Relation Ordinance, 1969 for adjudication of indusial dispute, not yet decided. The respondent management continuously harassed the workers office-bearers of the Union particularly the petitioner so much so that the registration of the Union of the petitioner was challenged before the competent forum. The respondent management issued a letter dated 27-1-1998 whereby the petitioner was directed to report to Tipu Sultan Building from 2-2-1998 which was resisted, the petitioner was forced to sit in the Inspector's room till finalization of the matter. The respondent continuously extended pressurizing tactics, changed nature of work as well as designation. The petitioner filed a case before Industrial Relation Commission regarding the change of his designation. It is averred on 22-2-2005 the petitioner did not attend his office due to sickness on the same day matter was fixed before National Industrial Relations Commission Bench at Karachi. Petitioner attended the case went back to his house for rest. On the next day he assumed the duty submitted an application for leave which was granted, respondent management issued a show-cause notice for absence from duty for one day as he has proceeded to attend the case. Petitioner submitted his explanation, he was suspended from duty for four days, kept under suspension for four days for another period. After the expiry of suspension period the petitioner was not allowed to attend the office, inquiry was conducted, such report was filed along with the application before Labour Court seeking permission to dismiss the petitioner from service in view of the pendency of industrial dispute. After recording the evidence of the parties, the permission as sought was granted, subsequently thereby the petitioner was dismissed from the service.
3. ' Learned coansel for petitioner has contended that the respondent in order to pressurize the petitioner has created an incident tantamount to an act of unfair labour practice with planning to cause hindrances in the trade union activities. The show-cause notice issued on account of single leave sought by the petitioner as he had proceeded to attend the case in the Court of law, the petitioner was placed under suspension and due to pendency of the Industrial dispute, the respondent has proceeded to serve a show-cause notice, an inquiry was convened with mala fide object, in order to victimize the petitioner. It is next urged that the inquiry proceedings preplanned setup to frustrate the industrial dispute pending in the Court of law.
4. ' Or behalf of the respondent Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani has contended that after the permission was awarded by the competent Court the petitioner was dismissed from the service, he had proceeded to file proceedings for available remedy, he cannot be allowed to assail two forums for one redress. The inquiry conducted against the petitioner was in consonance with law. Adverting to the first contention which pertains to the extraordinary jurisdiction under Constitution, it is submitted that section 40 of I.R.O, 2002 which correspond to section 47(2) of I.R.O, 1969 the office- bearer of the union during the pendency of the industrial dispute cannot be dismissed except with the previous permission from Labour Court. Onus to prove is on the employer, once the employer has discharged the onus and the other party fails to rebut, the permission to dismiss is granted.
5. Section 47(3) of the Ordinance, 2002 specifically provides that ... Save as otherwise expressly provided on this Ordinance. All decisions of and all sentences passed by the Labour Court shall be final and shall not be called in question in any manner by or before any authorities, therefore a penalty has been attached to the impugned order, this aspect of the matter was examined by a Division Bench of this Court reported in (1) 2000 PLC 144, the remedy is extraordinary one cannot be availed where the legislature has not provided an adequate remedy. The Legislature intended to end litigation at one stage did not provide forum of appeal. (2) NLR 1991 Civil 775 (sic), 1998 Tribunal Decision Labour 245.
6. ' Resume of the above case-law is that an interim order which is not appealable cannot be challenged by invoking jurisdiction in the High Court after the dismissal of the petitioner matter is already sub judice before the Labour Court for his reinstatement.
7. ' In 1997 PLC 22 at page 24 in similar situation where the petitioner had filed the petition in NIRC for quashment of disciplinary action on the ground that he was being victimized for his union activities, it was not granted by NIRC and he was removed from service. The employee concerned challenged the dismissal in the Labour Court, Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the constitutional petition challenging the order of NIRC on the ground that having invoked the forum of Labour Court, constitutional petition was not maintainable and leave was refused by Supreme Court of Pakistan. Furthermore in unreported case Constitutional Petition No,D-813 of 1998 the Division Bench of Karachi High Court passed a judgment authored by Mr. Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed (as he then was), held that petitioner acknowledged that the order of his dismissal is a fait accompli and he has proceeded to question it before appropriate Labour Court on all grounds available to him.
8. ' In earlier round of litigation when petitioner was served with a charge sheet and inquiry was being conducted, he had filed case in the NIRC. This case has since been dismissed, said judgment is reported in 2001 PLC 186.
9. Decisions of Single Bench of NIRC are appealable in terms of section 22 repealed I.R.O., 1969 which corresponds to section 52 of 2002. No appeal has been filed by the petitioner in the Full Bench of NIRC. Since adequate alternative remedy was available to the petitioner failed to avail, he is not entitled to avail extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction.
10. Undoubtedly Labour Court is a Court of exclusive jurisdiction has proceeded to pass a speaking order therefore I do not deem it appropriate to interfere in the impugned judgment as disputed question of facts cannot be challenged in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, the forum available in the hierarchy under the relevant law shall decide controversial question on the basis of record and in accordance with law, this view finds support from the report 1998 SCM R 706.
11. ' For the foregoing reasons, petition is hereby dismissed being not maintainable in law. Parties are left to bear cost in the peculiar circumstances.