ABDUL HAFEEZ CHEEMA, CHAIRMAN - This appeal calls in question the legality of the judgment dated 12.01.2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad whereby accepting the grievance petition filed by the respondent the learned Labour Court ordered that the order of the F.S.T. Dated 23.6.2006 has .Attained finality and the appellants are bound to implement the same without further delay.
2. The facts of the case briefly are that the respondent who was a Telephone Operator BS-7, challenged his verbal order of termination passed in April, 1994 before the N.I.R.C., Lahore Bench, Lahore through a petition alleging that on account of trade union activities he was penalized.
Consequently, the petition was allowed vide order dated 28.7.1997. The department filed an appeal before the Full Bench of the N.I.R.C. Which was accepted on technical ground due to the insertion of Section 2-A in the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. The respondent alongwith others filed an appeal before the F.S.T. Which was disposed of on 29.5.2001 with the direction that every appellant should file a separate appeal. Consequently, he respondent filed a separate appeal which was accepted by the Federal Service Tribunal vide order dated 23.6.2006. The department was obstructing its implementation on a number of grounds. Thereafter the matter came up before the Labour Court.
The learned Labour Court after hearing the parties directed the department to comply with the orders of the F.S.T.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that law does not permit the Labour Court or Tribunal to work as an executing Court of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Federal Service Tribunal itself is an independent Tribunal and it has the jurisdiction to get implemented its own orders as such the learned Court had no mandate in law to order implementation of the F.S.T's order.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand argued that the poor man has been running from post to pillar for seeking relief. Ultimately when he got relief he is being denied the same on technical grounds. The Tribunal should provide the relief to the respondent and direct the appellant to implement the order of the Federal Service Tribunal in letter and spirit.
5. Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.
6. Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010, in its preamble declares purpose of the enactment as under:- "Whereas it is expedient to regulate formation of trade unions and trade union activities, relations between employees and workmen and the avoidance and settlement of any differences or dispute arising between them and ancillary matters;"
Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 envisions the purpose of this enactments as under:- "Whereas it is expedient to amend and consolidate the law relating to industrial employment in the Province of West Pakistan Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred on him by clause (1) of Article 79 of the Constitution, the Governor of West Pakistan is pleased to make and promulgate the following Ordinance:-"
7. Section -33(8), Section 47(8) read with Section 66 of PIRA, 2010 empowered the Labour Court and the Tribunal to ensure implementation of their orders and in case of any defiance the Tribunal has been vested with the powers of Contempt of Court as if it were a High Court.
8. A bare perusal of these sections indicate that the law clearly lays down the area wherein the Labour Courts and the Tribunal have to exercise their jurisdiction. In their limited sphere the Labour Court nor the Tribunal are vested general jurisdiction whereas the Civil Courts indeed possessed general jurisdiction. By Civil Court is meant the entire hierarchy of the Civil Courts ascending, right upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. It is noteworthy that in the wake of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Executive Council, Allama Iqbal Open University, Islamabad through Chairman and another v. M. Tufail Hashmi reported as 2010 SCM R 1484 there remains not an iota of doubt that the Service Tribunal is to decide the cases of civil servants only. It has been ruled by their Lordships:- "Now coming towards the definition of a person in 'corporation service' or a person in 'government service', as defined in Section 2(c) and (d) of the R.S.O., 2000. Such persons can be subjected to the R.S.O., 2000 but keeping in view the definition of the 'civil servant' under the Civil Servants Act, 1973 as well as the dictum laid down in Muhammad Mubeen- us-Salam's case (ibid), only those employees can approach the Service Tribunal, who fait within the definition of 'civil servant', holding posts in connection with the affairs of the Federation. As far as the remaining categories of employees, including the contractual ones, are concerned, if they are aggrieved of any adverse action, the Service Tribunal is not the appropriate forum for redressal of their grievance, in view of the above conclusion, because it is a forum constituted under Article 212 of the Constitution for the redressal of grievance of those employees, whose term's and conditions are settled under Article 212(1)(a) of the Constitution."
The Service Tribunal can only take the cases of civil servants or organizations who are governed by the statutory rules and not otherwise.
8. In this view of the matter, the learned Labour Court appears to have passed an order presumably to arrest/curtail the miseries of the respondent. The Courts should pass orders to ease the difficulties of the citizens and not to create difficulties for them on technical grounds nevertheless this rule is only application where the particular Court or Tribunal possesses jurisdiction. In this both the Courts i.e. Labour Court as well as the Labour Appellate Tribunal are the creation of a Statute and they cannot go beyond the limits prescribed by law it self as such if any order is passed by the Labour Court or by this Tribunal in respect of the matters which are beyond their jurisdiction that would be nullity in the eyes of law as such I feel that the respondent should seek his relief from any other appropriate forum.
9. In this view of the matter, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside, leaving the parties to bear their own cost.