CH. MUHAMMAD TARIQ, J.--- Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that respondent No,2 while serving as "Field Officer" at Habib Bank Limited, Sahiwal Branch, District Sargodha, was served with a Charge Sheet/Show Cause Notice containing serious allegations i.e, Breach of Trust, Breach of Rules and Regulations of the Bank, Wilful Damages/Loss to Bank's Business, mala fide intention and receiving illegal gratification/commission from the Borrowers.
2. That thereafter, a detailed inquiry was conducted. On 12-11-2007, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the above said allegations which were levelled against the respondent No,2 have been proved. A chance of personal hearing was also given to respondent No,2 and finally he was dismissed from service vide order dated 2-1-2008 on the basis of proved allegations.
3. That respondent No,2 served a grievance notice and later on approached the Punjab Labour Court No,5, Sargodha, who vide order dated 8-3-2010, reinstated the respondent No,2.
4. That the petitioner bank feeling aggrieved of the order dated 8-3-2010 passed by Punjab Labour Court No,5, Sargodha, preferred an appeal before respondent No,1 i.e, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal which is still pending. The respondent No,1 vide order dated 27-10-2010 directed the appellant to let join respondent No,2 on his duty provisionally because due to the rush of work, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal is not in a position to decide the appeal of respondent No,2 within prescribed period of 20 days. Learned counsel prays that writ petition be allowed, impugned order dated 27-10-2010 be set aside on the ground that serious allegations/charges were levelled against respondent No,2 which were duly proved by the inquiry Officer. The respondent No,2 was also provided with opportunity of personal hearing and provisionally allowing him to join duty will badly effect the business and reputation of bank because charges against respondent No,2 were fully proved during inquiry.
5. Conversely, learned counsel for respondent No,2 has vehemently opposed this writ petition and has contended that writ petition is not maintainable nor restraint order exceeding 20 days could be passed under Section 55 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008. The Punjab Labour Court No,5, Sargodha, exonerated the respondent No,2 from the charges and also reinstate him in service and at present there is no adverse order against respondent No,2, so he cannot be restrained to join his duty.
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. Perusal of record highlights that Punjab Labour Court No,5, Sargodha, in his judgment held that there is no adverse evidence on the record that respondent No,2 had any power of hire and fire, and as a consequence, respondent No,2 was reinstated in job from the day when he was dismissed from service will all hack benefits.
8. That to decide the controversy between the parties, interpretation of section 55(9) is important which provides as under:--- "Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (3) if in an appeal referred to it against the order of a Labour Court directing the reinstatement of a workman, the Tribunal makes an order staying the operation of the order of the Labour Court, the Tribunal shall decide such appeal within twenty days of its being preferred: ' Provided that, if such appeal is not decided within the period aforesaid, the order of the Tribunal shall stand vacated on the expiration of that period."
9. According to the relevant part of Section reproduced above, the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal can grant interim relief for a period of 20 days and even if an interim relief would have been granted, it would lapse after the expiry of 20 days. The appeal is still pending before the Tribunal.
10. The law has taken away the right of interim relief. Therefore, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked in aid of injustice and to deflect express provisions of statutory law. Similarly, under the relevant law mentioned hereinabove, a temporary injunction or restraint, order could not be passed in the constitutional jurisdiction of this court as the Act mentioned hereinabove, has taken away the right of petitioner to interim relief. The legislature has Made it further very clear that no interim relief is extended beyond 2 days and in this behalf writ jurisdiction of this Court cannot be invoked.
Reliance is placed on 1976 SCM R 450, 1980 PLC 800 and 1977 PLC 6.
11. As a result of above discussion, this writ petition is without any merit, same is dismissed.