This revision petition under Section 115, CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2014 of the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Swabi whereby the petitioners' appeal against the judgment/order and decree dated 17.05.2014 of the learned Civil Judge-II, Swabi, has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed a suit against the respondents, for the following reliefs:-- "(i) Declare that the impugned vacation orders are illegal, against law and facts and against the interest of the plaintiffs.
(ii) Declare that the plaintiffs are the lawful residents of their quarters lawfully allotted to them.
(iii) Declare that the defendants have got no right to dispossess the plaintiffs.
(iv) Grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to harass and dispossess the plaintiffs from the quarters.
(v) Any other reliefs which this honorable Court deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
3. During the hearing of application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC, the learned trial Court adverted to the maintainability of the suit and through order date 17.05.2014 rejected the plaint for its being barred by law. Aggrieved from the rejection of their plaint, petitioners impugned the same in appeal but the learned appellate Court dismissed their appeal by concurring with the findings of the learned trial Court, hence the instant revision petition.
4. Arguments heard and record gone through.
5. Perusal of the record would show that plaint of the petitioners was rejected for its being hit by Section 14 of the Worker's Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971, which reads as under:- "S. 14--Protection of persons acting under this Ordinance.--No suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done under this Ordinance."
6. Record of the case shows that the petitioners had filed a suit for declaration that the notices issued to them by the respondents for vacation of the residences occupied by them are illegal in the eyes of law. Whether these notices were issued legally or otherwise is a question which will be answered when some documentary or oral evidence is recorded by the Court. Moreso, whether, Section 14 of the Ordinance is applicable to the case of the petitioners or not is a controversy which cannot be resolved under Order VII, Rule 11, CPC. Even otherwise, whether an action has been taken in good faith or 'otherwise which is hallmark of Section 14 of the Ordinance ibid can only be determined when pro and contra evidence is recorded by the parties.
7. In addition, for eviction of a worker from a house, a set procedure has been provided by the Ordnance which forum is available to the respondents for the redressal of their grievance against the petitioners.
8. For what has been discussed above, in my considered view, the judgments and decrees of the two Courts below are contrary to law on the subject which are not sustainable. Therefore, I accept the instant revision petition, set aside both the impugned judgments and decrees and direct the learned trial Court to proceed with the case on merits.
(R.A) .