HAFIZ TARIQ NASIM, J. --- Brief facts of this case, for the purpose of clarity, are that the petitioner was appointed as Driver against a regular post on 30.12.2003 against 20% quota of reserved seats for the children of working and retired Government servants, he joined the duty, performed the same for sometime but later on, his services were dispensed with The petitioner approached the Punjab Labour Court No. 5, Sargodha, his petition was dismissed, however, he filed Labour Appeal No. 316/2004 before this Court, which was allowed vide judgment dated 26.11.2008 in the following terms:--- "The termination order of the appellant as well as the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court are set aside and the appellant is reinstated into service. However, the intervening period from the date of termination to the date of this order, shall be treated as extraordinary leave without pay. This appeal is allowed."
The petitioner has been forced to file the present writ petition due to his continuous grievance by way of non-implementation of the judgment of this Court. Learned counsel reiterates his submissions contained in the writ petition, ,whereas learned counsel for the respondents relying on a judgment reported as WAPDA and others v. Qari Muhammad Feroze and others (2009 SCM R 396); submits that as the judgment of this Court is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter is pending for final adjudication, so this Court should lay its hands of the matter.
3. Heard.
4. First of all, I have to advert to the judgment cited keeping in view the well-settled law that every case is to be decided on its on facts. In the case referred supra, the matter in respect of seniority of two groups of WAPDA . Employees was taken up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court . And the apex Court held:-- "Departments and authority, particularly in service matter when the lis is pending in the Court relating to terms and conditions of service, like the instant one, where the rights of the parties regarding seniority is under consideration and was still to be determined by the Court with a resultant consequence of effecting further promotion and other rights like the selection grade the department should keep its hands of, unless there is specific order of the Court for further proceedings on the part of the department/authority, in order to avoid further complications and which ought to have been visualized by the department."
5. It is observed that the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents has no nexus with the present case, which revolves around a case of reinstatement, wherein the daily milk and bread of a family is involved , whereas in the cited judgment matter pertains to seniority, contesting parties are very much in service, getting salaries and only questioning the prospects of promotion etc. And not pressing for their livelihood.
6. Today, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents 'conveys a message that the direct effect of the ratio of the said judgment is that the orders of the High Court are no more than mere in papers, rather than actual directions or orders which are to be implemented in letter and spirit. In my view, if the High Court does lay its hands of the matter after a C.P.L.A. Has been filed, this would not only infringe the lights of an aggrieved party but would also open a door. For wilful abuse of the High court's orders. An example to elucidate the way by which a High Court's order may be and often is abused since relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is explained below.
7. As per law, a party has a time limit of.60 days to file a C.P.L.A. In the Hon'ble Supreme.Court, therefore, the way in which the parties may and usually do abuse the process of law is through usually waiting for 59 days before filing the C.P.L.A. And on the 60th day they file the same thus delaying the implementation of High Court's order by an initial 60 days and thereby further aggrieving a party in whose favour judgment has been passed by the High Court. Once such C.P.L.A. Has been filed, the party usually covers its mala fide, inaction or unwillingness to implement the judgment by relying on the judgment supra. The grievance of the party, in whose favour the High Court has passed the judgment continues after the initial 60 days period to a further period of at least one to two years because once C.P.L.A. Has been filed (even though no stay order has been passed by the apex Court),- it lakes a considerable time for the C.P.L.A. To be fixed and decided by the HOn'ble Supreme Court.
8. If the High Court, according .To the learned counsel for the respondents, lays its hands of the matter, after the C.P.L.A. Has been filed (provided no stay has been granted ) it would literally mean that the parties are now free to implement the order of the High Court at their on will and if they decide not to implement the order, they have an excuse in form of the judgment referred by the learned counsel for the respondents and according to the learned counsel it requires the High Court to lay its hands of the matter, when C.P.L.A. Has been filed.
9. This would not only further inflict injustice upon the party in whose favour High Court has, passed the judgment but would also leave the High Court totally and practically incapacitated of its powers to require the implementation of its order. The final judgment/order of the High Court would virtually mean nothing in practicality if the High Court is restrained from taking measures to require implementation of its orders on the basis of mere filing of C.P.L.A. In. The Supreme Court. .10. As per law, even an interim order passed by the High Court is to be fully implemented and applicable on the parties concerned since the moment it is passed, however, if the High Court lays its hands of the matter after C.P.L.A. Has been filed then even a final judgment/order passed by the High Court would mean nothing more than a piece of paper and the parties in whose favour the High Court has passed the judgment is left totally at the mercy of the department. Therefore, if in effect, the High Court's judgment has no more value than a piece of paper then the exercise of coming before .The High Court in writ jurisdiction is fruitless due to the fact that It cannot require implementation of its on judgment.
11. In my view, the law laid down and consistent practice which 'had the effect of requiring implementation of a High Court's order even if a C.P.L.A. Had been filed (provided no stay order is passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court) is perfectly consistent with the rights of aggrieved parties which ensured that the orders of the High Court.Were implemented in true letter and spirit until and unless the Supreme Court had either stayed the operation of the judgment of the High Court or had finally overturned it. This way forward would not only ensure that the continuous grievance of. Effected parties would be redressed (through implementation) but would also ensure that a High Court's order is implemented in its true letter and spirit even by those who are unwilling to implement it. Otherwise, the High Courts would be rendered useless if their powers of requiring and directing implementation of their on orders is taken away.
12 In' my opinion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed the cited judgment in a totally different factual scenario with its on peculiar set of facts and the judgment must have been intended to apply in personam rather than in rem, therefore, reliance on the said judgment by the respondents cannot be allowed by this Court, as its interpretation of the respondents directly effects (through curtailing) the powers of the High Courts as enshrined .In the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
13. As there is no stay order restraining or suspending the operation of the judgment of this Court dated 26.11.2008 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, this writ petition is accepted with the direction to the respondents to fully implement the decision of this Court, within a period' of fifteen days under intimation to the Deputy. Registrar (Judicial) of this Cour.