' ABID AZIZ SHEIKH, J. This single order will dispose of W.P. Nos. 14071/2013; 14072-13; 14073-13; 14074- 13; 14075-13 and 14076-13 as the common questions of law and fact are involved in this petition as well as all these connected writ petitions are against the same impugned order dated 16.07.2013, whereby the learned Presiding Officer of Labour Court No, 10, Sahiwal, allowed the application for grant of interim relief and the order dated 04.09.2013 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Multan.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that respondents No, 1 to 10 are allegedly working in the factory of the petitioner for the last several years as daily wagers workers. The respondents on the basis of their long term of service and under the apprehension that petitioner will remove them from said service, filed grievance petition before the learned Labour Court, Sahiwal, contending that they are performing their duties efficiently, diligently without any complaint for the last many years without any break, therefore, under the Commercial Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 the respondents have attained the status of permanent employee hence they may be regularized. Further contended that despite repeated requests, the petitioner has not regularized the service of the respondents rather threatening to remove them from service. The grievance petition was accompanied with an application for grant of interim relief.
3. The petitioner filed written statement as well as reply to stay application. The learned Labour Court after hearing the parties vide order dated 16.07.2013 allowed the application for grant of temporary injunction and ad-interim injunction for maintaining status quo, was confirmed. The petitioner being aggrieved filed a revision before the learned Punjab Appellate Tribunal which was also dismissed vide order dated 04.09.2013. Both these impugned orders have been assailed in this as well as connected Constitutional petitions.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the interim relief granted by the learned Labour Court which was upheld by the learned Punjab Appellate Tribunal, amounts to grant of final relief in the grievance petition and therefore, the interim stay granted is not sustainable. Reliance is placed on U.B.L and others v. Ahsan Akhtar and others (1998 SCMR 68); Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary Div., Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Zaman Khan and others (1997 SCMR 1508) and Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal and others (PLJ 1987 SC 581). He further submits that respondents being daily wagers do not have any right to be regularized and be treated as permanent employee. Reliance is placed on Muhammad Yaqoob v. The Punjab Labour Court No, 1 and 5 others (1990 SCMR 1539) and Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. v. Abdul Sattar and 2 others (1996 PLC 162). Further argued that where the order is patently illegal, this Court can interfere in its Constitutional jurisdiction.
5. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents argued that main relief claimed in the grievance petition is regarding the regularization of the services of respondents from the date of their appointment and respondents also claimed their previous dues and service benefits whereas the application for interim relief is only to the effect that respondents' service may not be terminated? Which by no mean amounts to a final relief. Adds that the issue whether the respondents are working without break hence have become permanent employees under the Commercial Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is the question of law and fact which is yet to be determined by Court after recording of evidence, hence at this stage the respondents No, 1 to 10 being already in service, the Courts below have rightly granted the interim relief. He further submits that the Court which can pass a final relief: can also grant interim relief. Contends that this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot interfere in the interim orders passed by the Court of competent jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on Province of Punjab through Secretary Communication and Works Department and others v. Ahmad Hussain (2013 SCMR 1547); /C/ Pakistan Ltd., Lahore v. Punjab Labour Court No, 3, Ferozewala, Sheikhupura and another (1999 PLC 13) and Philips Electrical Industries of Pakistan Ltd. v. The 2nd Sindh Labour Court, Karachi through P.O. And 53 others (2000 PLC 14).
6. Arguments heard. Record perused.
7. The question whether the respondents have attained the status of a permanent employee due to length of their service, in terms of Commercial Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 is a question of law and fact which is yet to be decided by the learned Labour Court after recording the evidence of the parties. However, the parties have not denied that respondents are working as daily wagers with the petitioner for the last several years and they have never terminated by the petitioner. The fact that respondents are working with the petitioner for the last several years without break and their services were never terminated before filing of grievance petition and they are still performing their duties. With petitioner, makes out a good prima facie case in favour of the respondents and the other two ingredients of balance of convenience and irreparable loss is also lies with the respondents. The only question which need determination is as to what extent the interim relief could be granted by the learned Courts below. The main stress of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Labour Court and the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal granted the interim relief in the form of final relief which order is not sustainable. The perusal of record shows that this plea is neither correct nor sustainable. The prayer made in the grievance petition is that respondents be regularized from the date of their appointment and further they be awarded service benefit with previous dues against their service whereas in the application for grant of interim relief, the relief claimed is that no adverse action may be taken against the respondents and they may not be removed or transferred. The learned Labour Court vide impugned order dated 16.7.2013 accepted the application for temporary injunction which by no mean amounts to grant of final relief in the grievance petition for the reasons that through these orders, the respondents are neither given status of permanent/regular employees nor their services are restored as admittedly the respondents' services were never terminated, impugned order only amounts to maintain status quo which is not a final relief in the main case. Further the interim relief granted is not of permanent nature and if the grievance petition of the respondents will be dismissed ultimately the interim relief with also cease to exist. Further the learned Appellate Tribunal has already issued direction 1 in the impugned order for expeditious disposal of the main grievance petition. I also find substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents that where the Court has the power to grant main relief, it can also grant interim relief. In this regard reliance is placed on Sindh Employees Social Security Institution and another v. Adamjee Cotton Mills Ltd. (PLD 1975 SC 32); Molvi Muhammad Yaqub v. Chairman, Election Tribunal, NWFP and others (PLD 1976 SC 625) and Philip Electrical Industries of Pakistan Ltd. v. The Sindh Labour Court. Karachi through P.O. And 53 others (2000 PLC 14). The case-law relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
8. As discussed above, the learned Labour Court bad the jurisdiction to grant interim relief, and further the interim relief granted in this case does not amount to final relief claimed in the grievance petition; hence the impugned orders are neither without jurisdiction nor result of any patent illegality. Where the Court or Tribunal set up under ordinary law, has the jurisdiction to decide a particular matter, then the limits of High Court's Constitutional jurisdiction to interfere in such order has been enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Abdur Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan and 9 others (PLD 1981 SC 522) in the following terms:--- "The question of jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 199 has come under consideration in a number of cases before this Court and it has repeatedly held that if a Court or Tribunal set up under the ordinary law has the jurisdiction to decide a particular matter then there is jurisdiction to decide it rightly or wrongly and the fact that the decision is incorrect, or is not one at which the High Court would have arrived, does not render the decision without jurisdiction."
' In this very case, the Honourable Supreme Court has further relied on its earlier decisions which are as follows:- Badrul Haque v. The Election Tribunal, Dacca (PLD 1963 SC 704), Raunaq Ali etc. v. Chief Settlement Commissioner and others (PLD 1973 SC 236); Rahim Shah v. Chief Election Commissioner (PLD 1973 SC 24); Muhammad Hussain Munir v. Sikandar (PLD 1974 SC 139); Zulfiqar Khan Awan v. Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development, Government of Punjab, Lahore and 8 others (1974 SCMR 530) and Begum Wazir Ahmad Industrial Home v. Niaz Begum (PLD 1976 SC 214)."
' In subsequent judgments by the Honourable Supreme Court, besides jurisdictional defect, patent illegality was also made a ground for exercising of Constitutional jurisdiction as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Ramzan and 12 others v. The Member, (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and 7 others (1994 SCMR 55) as under:- "In exercising its Constitutional jurisdiction the High Court was not acting like a Court of appeal and largely had to see as to whether the- orders brought before it for removal through judicial review, suffered from any jurisdictional defect or patent illegality."
9. The perusal of impugned orders passed by the learned Presiding Officer Labour Court and learned revisional Court reveal that these are not suffered from jurisdictional defect or patent illegality. In any case, the orders are of interim in nature and as to the propriety of the impugned interim orders or their correctness or otherwise in my humble view ought not to be entertained in Constitutional jurisdiction. Reliance is placed on Bolan Bank Limited v. Capricorn Enterprise (Pvt.)
Ltd. (1999 PSC 128), Muhammad Zubair and 4 others v. Muhammad Zameer (1999 CLC 2045) and Mst. Ayesha Bibi v. District Judge (PLJ 2006 Lahore 41).
10. In view of above discussion, as the impugned interim orders are not without jurisdiction or patently illegal, therefore, it is not a fit case for interference in Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The result is that this writ petition alongwith compended writ petitions are hereby dismissed.