' Mubarik Ali (Turner), Liaqat Ali (Drill Operator), Elahi Bakhsh, (Helper Fitter), Islamud Din (Blacksmith) and Abdul Aziz, Store Keeper, (respondents) were employed in the Karkhana Alaat-e- Zaree, Bahawalpur {{URDU TEXT}}. They were charge-sheeted and ultimately dismissed from service vile separate orders dated 28-2-1975, 28-2-1975, 12-10-1974, 10-2-1975 and 28-2-1975 respectively. Each of them filed separate petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the then Junior Labour Court, Rahimyar Khan. Vide separate ex parte orders dated 25-4-1975 the Junior Labour Court re-instated each respondent with back benefits. The Management filed separate appeals against each respondents before the then Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Multan. A legal objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Court was raised on behalf of the Management before the Labour Court during the pendency of the appeals that the respondent-employees were persons employed in the administration of State and, therefore, were, not entitled to the benefits of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 like the employees of any other private industry. The Labour Court vide order dated 20-3-1976 overruled the legal objection by holding that the respondents were not persons employed "in the administration of State and, therefore, were entitled to the protection of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 like the employees of private industries. The Management feeling aggrieved with the said order of the Labour Court, challenged the same through a writ petition before the High Court. The writ petition was admitted for regular hearing and further proceedings were stayed. However subsequently on 25-11-1978 that writ petition was rejected by the High Court. It is stated at the bar by the counsel for the petitioner that the judgment of the High Court has already been challenged before the Supreme Court through petition for special leave to appeal.
2. Vide order dated 6-7-1979 the Labour Court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned decision of the Junior Labour Court dated 25-4-1975 and remanded the case for retrial for decision on merits. However, in the meantime the Junior Labour Courts were abolished and, therefore, the case was kept by the Labour Court as successor of Junior Labour Court for retrial on its original side. The Management in their written statement raised the following preliminary objections :-
(a) That since the Karkana Alaat-e-Zaree, Bahawalpur had been taken over by the Agriculture Department Government of the Punjab with effect from 11-1-76 and according to the notification the existing liabilities and assets stood transferred to the Agriculture Department, therefore, the Agriculture Department Government of the Punjab, be made a party in this case.
(b) That at the time the grievance petition was made the Karkhana Alaat-e-Zaree was being run by the Administrator Co-operative Development Funds and Projects under the West Pakistan Co- operative Board (Dissolution) Act of 1966 and, therefore, the Administrator Co-operative Development Funds and Projects be made a party.
' The Labour Court vide impugned order dated 14-2-1977 overruled the above preliminary objections in the following words :- "None of these objections has any force, because the learned counsel is assumed to have got the necessary instructions from the very commencement of the case alongwith a number of other similar cases and has been contesting those cases to their last stages in some of the applications and appeals. He is not required to seek any further instruction on the merits of those cases, as for the transfer of Cooperative Karkhana Alaat-e-Zaree to the Agriculture Department no charge in the status of the petitioner or the respondent has at all occurred by the said transfer. The Project Director, Co-operative Karkhana Alaat-e-Zaree, Bahawalpur, worked under the Co-operative Department when these cases were filed in the former Junior Labour Court Rahimyar Khan and subsequently were dealt by this Court at appellate stage. The Co-operative Department as parent Department was not pleaded as a party in these cases. In the result any change of parent department will not affect the proceedings of the case when the Project Director being the respondent is completely incharge of the Co-operative Karkhana Alate Zaree and has been the sole respondent throughout. The same argument applies to the irnpleading the Administrator, Agriculture Development Funds. It is, therefore, not for the Court to implead them as party. However, the learned counsel for the respondent is at liberty to intimate the Agriculture Department about the situation and if the said Department seeks to be impleaded as a party, the move made by it can be considered in duecourse and suitable order made in this behalf."
3. Against the above interim order, the Project Director, Karkhana Alaat-e-Zaree, Bahawalpur (petitioner) against each respondent filed separate revision petitions under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before this Tribunal on 6-3-1979 and the same were admitted for regular hearing on 7-3-1979 and meanwhile further proceedings were stayed by my learned predecessor in office. Since the impugned order in all the five cases is the same, all five revision petitions shall be disposed of by single judgment.
4. It may be mentioned that on the same day, i,e, 14-2-1977 the respondent employees appeared as their own witness before the Labour Court and tendered in evidence certain other documents and closed their evidence. Similarly, the Management produced Shahid Akhtar, Stenographer, in support of their cases and closed their evidence. Thus, the evidence of the parties was concluded on 14-2-1977 and the cases were adjourned to 26-2-1977 for arguments. It is, however, unfortunate that since 14-2-1977 the decision on merits could not be given by the Labour Court because of the stay order obtained by the Management.
5. From the perusal of the above, it is clear that the disciplinary actions were initiated against the respondents at the end of 1974 or beginning of 1975 and they were dismissed from service in February, 1975. Since then th Management is fighting out the litigation on preliminary objections before different Courts and has succeeded to delay the decision on merits for about six years. The poor workers are not only out of job since February, 1975 but are being dragged into litigations from Court to Court. They started wit the Junior Labour Court at Rahimyar Khan and one preliminary objection has already gone upto the highest Court of the realm. These respondents appeared in person before me; they all look of advance age and some o them may be nearing retirement; none of them is alleged to be an active Trade Union leader. In order to avoid further litigation they begged for reinstatement in service and were prepared to forego their right for back benefits. The impression created upon my mind is that the Management is trying to prolong and multiply the litigation by raising different preliminary objections before different Courts in order to defeat the ends of justice an thereby depriving the respondents from getting speedy justice from the Courts. I personally feel that in the peculiar circumstances the poor respondents deserve sympathetic attitude from the Department. Instead o raising various technical pleas and thereby multiplying and prolongin litigations and also wasting public money, the Department should have adopted different course either to absorb the respondents in service o to get their cases finally decided on merits by the Court so that they could know the fate of their cases and then act according to the decision of t Court. Karkhana Alaat-e-Zaree is an establishment owned by the Govern meat and not by a private industrialist, who may be justified to prolon and multiply litigation at all cost. The attitude of the Government establish went against their own employees should be slightly different.
I asked the learned counsel for the Management to convey my reaction to the appropriate authority. I also personally conveyed my feeling on the telephone to the Secretary, Agriculture Department that it is not a case where poor employees should be dragged into litigation from Court to Court for sue a long time. This type of litigation is against the true spirit of the Labour Laws and the intention .Of the Legislature. It is well settled now that under the Labour Laws prolonged and multiplied litigations for years in different Courts virtually amounts to denial of justice to poor worker as he cannot afford such litigation financially and mentally when he is already, out of employment. If the department is interested to let enunciated certain principle of law or interpretation of certain provisions of law by a competent higher Court, it could be done in some other appropriate case but not at the cost of jobless respondents. It is pity how an ordinary worker, who is out of job since February, 1975 can afford the expenses of litigation in the High Court and the Supreme Court. Whatever the ultimate result of such rolonged litigations, one thing will be obvious that the worker will loose his faith and confidence to get speedy justice from the Courts.
6. It is not denied that subsection (3-a) of section 38 of the Industrial relations Ordinance, 1969 does not give any right to an aggrieved part invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Appellate Tribunal but only confer ower upon the Tribunal to exercise it suo motu. In the peculiar circum ances of the case, I am clearly of the view that it is not a fit case to exerci y suo motu revisional jurisdiction rather it shocks my judicial consign prolong further litigation against the respondents. Accordingly, the evision petitions fail and are hereby dismissed with costs. Each respondent in each case shall be paid a consolidated sum of Rs, 1,000 as costs.
7. Since the matter has already been over delayed and the parties had heady closed their evidence on 14-2-1977, the Labour Court is directed to nally dispose of the cases as expeditiously as possible but before the end 'February, 1981. To avoid further delay the parties are directed to appear for the Labour Court on 20-1-1981. The office is directed to return the original record immediately to the Labour Court.