' AYESHA A. MALIK, J.---Through this petition, the Petitioner has impugned the proceedings initiated by the Respondents No, 1 and 2 on an application moved by the Respondent No, 5.
2. The case of the Petitioner is that it is a private limited company. The Respondent No, 5 was an employee of the Petitioner and was terminated after following due process. The Respondent No, 5 has challenged the order of dismissal from service before the Respondents No, 1 and 2 instead of moving the proper forum. The Respondent No, 2 on receipt of the application from the Respondent No, 5 has initiated an inquiry against the Petitioner. Learned counsel argued that any grievance that the Respondent No, 5 may have with respect to his termination from service should be pleaded before the Court of competent jurisdiction and also in terms of Section 33 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 a worker can bring his grievance to the notice of his employer.
Teamed counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Respondents No, 1 and 2 have no jurisdiction in the matter and cannot initiate proceedings against the Petitioner on an application of the Respondent No, 5.
3. Report and parawise comments have been filed by Respondents No, 1 to 4. In terms. Of the report and parawise comments admittedly, the matter is under inquiry by the Respondents No, 1 and 2 on an application filed by the Respondent No, 5 regarding the redressal of his grievance against the Petitioner.. However, they have denied the verbal order 21.6.2014 in which as per the contention of the Petitioner, they threatened the Petitioner to reinstate the Respondent No, 5 or else to face dire consequences. ' this Court under Constitutional jurisdiction. Hence, the instant petition is dismissed in limine alongwith the listed application.