' The record and proceedings of Application No, 285/80 (Muhammad Yousuf v. Divisional Manager, S. R. T. C.), pending before the learned VIth Labour Court, has been sent off in the exercise of the suo motu powers of revision of this Tribunal under subsection (3-a) of section 38, I. R.
0., for satisfying myself as to the legality, propriety and the correctness of the order passed by the learned Labour Court in those proceedings on 15th January, 1981, issuing an interim injunction against the S. R. T. C. Prohibiting it from holding a departmental enquiry against bus conductor, Muhammad Yousuf on the charge of remaining unauthorizedly absent from his duties for a period of 10 days.
2. The facts and circumstances which have given rise to these proceedings, briefly stated, are that the services of conductor Muhammad Yousuf were terminated by the S. R. T. C. On 31st January, 1980 along-with the services of several other employees of the S. R. T. C. By its joint order, dated 28th January, 1980. Muhammad Yousuf challenged the orders of termination of his services before the learned Labour Court, which by its decision, dated 26th October, 1980 allowed his grievance petition and directed the S. R. T. C. To reinstate Muhammad Yousuf with full back benefits. An appeal has been filed against the said decision and is a pending disposal before this Tribunal. In the meanwhile, pursuant to the orders of the learned Labour Court, the Divisional Manager, S. R. T. C.
Passed an order on 1st November, 1980 for the immediate reinstatement of conductor Muhammad Yousuf without prejudice to the rights of S. R. T. C. In the appeal preferred by it. The said letter, which covers the cases of 6 other employees of the S. R. T. C., besides that of Muhammad Yousuf, however, states that at the time of retrenchment, the persons who are being taken back on duty had drawn notice pay, provident fund, gratuity etc., according to rules and in case they fail to deposit the amount as shown against each, they cannot be taken on duty. As Muhammad Yousuf, apparently was not inclined to comply with the above directions contained in the said letter, regarding the deposit of amounts drawn by him in consequence of his orders of dismissal by the S. R. T. C., he did not join his duties at Sukkur. It is also possible that he may have been actuated by some other motive in not joining at Sukkur, although according to Mr. Wahid Bux, conductor Muhammad Yousuf is willing to join his duties at Sukkur if the condition regarding the repayment of the amounts drawn by him is modified to provide that he should be required to deposit the amounts according to rules. As Muhammad Yousuf did not report for duties at Sukkur an enquiry notice, dated 6th January, 1981 has been issued by the Enquiry Officer in respect of him.
Muhammad Yousuf, accordingly, approached the learned Labour Court a second time with the prayer that his transfer orders being_ illegal, the same should be set aside. Subsequently he filed an application, purporting to be under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, C. P. C. Praying for an interim injunction restraining the S. R. T. C. From conducting domestic enquiry against him through the Enquiry Officer, Mr. Ali Hassan. It was only this application that the learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order restraining the S. R. T. C. From holding the proposed enquiry against Conductor Muhammad Yousuf.
3. It has been admitted by Mr. Wahid Bux, the learned representative for Muhammad Yousuf that the latter has been reinstated in service and that he has been ordered to report for duty at Sukkur.
He has also admitted that Muhammad Yousuf after his dismissal from service had withdrawn notice pay and gratuity amounts. As such, there would appear to be substantial compliance of the orders of the learned Labour Court at least regarding the reinstatement in service of Muhammad Yousuf. Furthermore, since notice pay and gratuity are payable at the time of termination of services and since the termination of services had admittedly been held invalid by the learned Labour Court and the S. R. T. C. Were required to re-instate him in service, it would be appropriate for Muhammad Yousuf to refund the amounts drawn by him in accordance with whatsoever rules or departmental instructions are applicable to him. It may further be observed that whereas the grievance petition of Muhammad Yousuf is against his transfer orders, the interim injunction seeks to restrain the S. R. T. C. From holding a departmental enquiry against Muhammad Yousuf. No doubt, the departmental enquiry is in respect of Muhammad Yousuf's absence from duties at Sukkur; but it may be observed that the sole prayer of Muhammad Yousuf in his grievance petition was the withdrawal of the transfer orders and not the stoppage of the departmental enquiry.
Moreover, the important question is whether the learned Labour Court was entitled or empowered, in the circumstances, to issue an interim injunction restraining the S. R. T. C. From holding a departmental enquiry. It has been held by a Division Bench of the Karachi High Court in the case of Brooke Bond (Pak.) Ltd. v. Lind Sind Labour Court (1) that subsection (2) of section 36, I. R.
0.; does not confer all the powers of a Civil Court upon a Labour Court, but only such' powers as are required for the purposes of adjudicating and determining an industrial dispute and that for the purposes of determining an industrial dispute, the issuance of an inter locator injunction would not appear to be necessary. It may be pointed out that a grievance petition under section 25-A, is to be proceeded with as if it were an industrial dispute. This point has also been examined at some length by this Tribunal in the case of Khawaja Auto Cars v. Syed Abdul Rehman (2) where it has been held that it is a right of an employer to charge-sheet an employee and hold an enquiry against him and that an interim order restraining the holding of the enquiry proceedings was not proper and maintainable. It was also pointed out in the said case that though no party can as of right invoke the suo motu revisional jurisdiction of this' Tribunal, since this Tribunal can only act on an information received by it from some source, which may even be a party to the proceedings, there would appear to be no bar to the laying by a party of such information before the Tribunal and proceedings initiated upon such information would not suffer from any infirmity.
4. In view of the above legal position, I would set aside the impugned decision, dated 15th January, 1981 given by the learned Labour Court. However, 1 would like to make it clear that the setting aside of the said interim order will not affect the proceedings pending before the learned Labour Court on the grievance petition/application No, 285180 under section 25-A, I. R.
0. {{FOOT NOTE}}
(1) 1973 PLC 179 (2) 1973 PLC 1238 {{FOOT NOTE}}