' MUHAMMAD TARIQ ABBASI, J. --- Through the instant writ petition the order dated 29.01.2013 passed by the learned Labour Court No, X, Sahiwal and the judgment dated 29.10.2013 delivered by the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal No, II. Multan have been called in question.
2 .The facts leading to filing of the instant writ petition are that the respondent No, 1 to 3 filed grievance petition under Section 33(10) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 before the Punjab Labour Court No, X, Sahiwal, whereby the orders dated 24.9.2012 and 20.12.2012 of the petitioners towards termination of the respondents No, 1 to 3 from their employment with the petitioners at warehouse, Sahiwal were challenged to be illegal. Against procedure and liable to cancelled. The said petition was taken up by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court on 29.1.2013. When notices to the present petitioners were issued for 25.2.2013. On the same day, the learned Presiding Officer also proceeded with the application moved for grant of temporary injunction and suspended the above mentioned orders which were challenged in the above said grievance petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners approached the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No, II, Multan in shape of revision petition, but dismissed through judgment dated 29.10.2013. Consequently the petition in hand.
3. Arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for the' respondents No, 1 to 3 have been heard and the record has been perused.
4. The main objection is that the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at the first stance as interim relief, while suspending the orders dated 24.9.2012 and 20.12.2012, which were impugned in the grievance petition, in fact has granted, the main relief claimed in the grievance petition, which at all was not acceptable and permissible under the law.
5. The point in issue before this Courts is whether the suspension of the orders dated 24.9.2012 and 20.12.2012, in application for grant of temporary injunction would amount giving of the relief claimed in the main petition and is justified or otherwise.
6. The instant like situation, in shape of an appeal titled 'The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. v. Shri Ramesh war Dayal and another' came up before the Supreme Court from Punjab (India) in the year 1960 and decided through a judgment reported in AIR 1961 Supreme Court 689, relevant portion whereof is reproduced as under:- "Therefore, when a Tribunal is considering a complaint under S. 33-A and it has finally to decide whether an employee should be reinstated or not, it is not open to the Tribunal to order reinstatement as an interim relief, for that would be giving the workman the very relief which he could get only if on a trial of the complaint the employer failed to justify the order of dismissal. The interim relief ordered in this case was that the workman should be permitted to work in other words he was ordered to be reinstated; in the alternative it was ordered that if the management did not take him back they should pay him his full wages. We are of opinion that such an order cannot be passed in law as an interim relief, for that would amount to giving the respondent at the outset the relief to which he would be entitled only if the employer failed in the proceedings under S. 33-A. As was pointed out in Hotel Imperial's case, AIR 1959 SC 1342 ordinarily, interim relief should not be the whole relief that the workmen would get if they succeeded finally. The order therefore of the Tribunal in this case allowing reinstatement as an interim relief or in lieu thereof payment of full wages is manifestly erroneous and must therefore be set aside. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court as well as of the tribunal dated May 16, 1957, granting interim relief"
7. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan while deciding the case titled 'Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary Establishment Division, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Zeman Khan and others' reported in 1997 SCM R 1508 had held that through an interlocutory order, granting a relief of the nature, which will amount to allowing the main case without trial will not be justified. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced herein below:- "As regards the merits of the case, it may be pointed out that it is a well-settled proposition of law that the object of passing of an interlocutory order or status quo is to maintain the situation obtaining on the date when the party concerned approaches the Court and not to create a new situation. Another well-settled principle of legal jurisprudence is that generally a Court cannot grant an interlocutory relief of the nature which will amount to allowing the main case without trial/hearing of the same. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of this Court in the case of v. Heavy Foundry and Forge Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd and another 1989 SCMR 1855, in which the petitioner had been prematurely retired from service. He filed a suit and obtained a temporary injunction from a learned Civil Judge, which was vacated by a learned Additional District Judge. The petitioner then preferred a revision petition before the High Court of Sindh which was declined for the following reasons:---
(a) The order of retirement had already taken effect before the civil suit was instituted to challenge it: and
(b) even if the petitioner had merely an arguable case, the other two essential factors, i,e, presence of balance of convenience, which is in fact balance of inconvenience and causing of irreparable loss did not exist."
8. From the above-mentioned dictums, it has been confirmed that an interlocutory order amounting, grant of main relief should not be passed. Consequently the order dated 29.01.2013 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, whereby without giving notice to the present petitioners and affording them opportunity of hearing, the orders impugned in the main petition have been suspended, could not be termed to have been passed while exercising lawful authority. Consequently, by accepting the instant writ petition, the said order i,e, 29.01.2013 as well as the impugned judgment dated 29.10.2013 are set aside. The learned Presiding Officer of Punjab Labour Court No, X. Sahiwal, is directed to decide the matter within four months positively, from the receipt of this judgment.