CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- The brief facts out of present writ petition arises are that the petitioners transferred respondent No,2 on 29-12-2003 from Lahore to Rawalpindi. Respondent No,2 filed petition under section 49(4) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 before respondent No,1.
Respondent No,1 passed the restraining order in favour of respondent No,2 vide order, dated 7-1- 2004 and the parties were directed to maintain the status quo. The petitioners being aggrieved filed this writ petition.
2. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that respondent No,1 wrongly assumed the jurisdiction in view of section 1(4)(b) of I.R.O., 2002, wherein the employee of Railways was excluded specifically by the Legislature in the contents of I.R.O., 2002. He further submits that respondent No,1 has no authority under the law to pass the impugned order in view of section 49(4) of I.R.O., 2002. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments:--- ' Unreported judgment, dated 30-10-1997 passed in Writ Petition No,7997-S of 1995, unreported judgment, dated 11-3-1998 passed in Writ petition No,371 of 1997, Divisional Superintendent v.
National I.R. Commission and others 1997 PLC 307, Divisional Superintendent v. National I.R.
Commission 2002 PLC 667.
3. The learned counsel of respondent No,2 submits that Shabbir Hussain has also filed a petition before respondent No,1 and restraining order has been passed in favour of said Shabbir Hussain on 11-3-2003 and writ petitioners have not filed any application for vacation of stay order granted by respondent No,1 in favour of the said Shabbir Hussain. He further submits that the petitioners have filed this constitutional petition with mala fide intention while not challenging the vires of order passed by respondent No,1 in favour of Shabbir Hussain.
4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.
5. The provision of Industrial Relations Ordinance is not applicable qua employee of Railways as per law laid down by the Superior Courts in the following judgments:--- ' Akbar Ali and others v. Senior Admn. Officer and others 1992 SCMR 1341, Mehboob Khan and 307 others v. Government of Pakistan and others 1993 SCMR 2385 and Railways Workers' Union Regd. v.
Government of Pakistan and others PLD 1995 Lah. 333, Divisional Superintendent v. National I.R.
Commission 2002 PLC 667.
' In this view of the matter, the petition filed by respondent No,2 before respondent No,1 is not maintainable, therefore, the impugned order of respondent No,1 is set aside as the jurisdiction of respondent No,1 has exclusively barred by the provisions of law as per law laid down by the superior Courts in the aforesaid judgments. The petitioners have not challenged the vires of order passed in favour of Shabbir Hussain, this fact brings the case in the area that the petitioners being public functionaries have no authority to act in derogation of Article 4 of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, respondent No,1 is directed to initiate the proceedings for vacation of stay granted by respondent No,1 in favour of the said Shabbir Hussain.
' With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.