MAHMOOD AHMAD BHATTI, J.---Through this petition, the petitioners have assailed the following interim order dated 5.5.2014 passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No, II, Multan:--- "Meanwhile, appellant-institution will take the respondent on duty as teacher till the final decision of the instant appeal. However, to the extent of back benefits order dated 28.3.2014 passed by learned Labour Court No, II, D.G. Khan is hereby suspended till next date, subject to notice."
2. This writ petition arises out of a grievance petition made by Mst. Firdous Fatima respondent No, 3 before Punjab Labour Court No, II, D.G. Khan. It was alleged by her that she was a Teacher by profession and that her service was terminated by the petitioners vide order dated 27.6.2007, without any valid and cogent reasons.
3. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioners allegedly conducted an inquiry before dispersing with the services of respondent No,
3. As it is, the inquiry report and the consequential termination order passed against respondent No, 3 were set aside by Punjab Labour Court No, II D.G. Khan, respondent No, 2 vide judgment dated 28.3.2014.
' Resultantly, respondent No, 3 was ordered to be reinstated in service immediately. She was also held to be entitled to back benefits.
4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners assailed the aforesaid judgment dated 28.3.2014, passed by respondent No, 2 by filing an appeal before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No, II, Multan, respondent No,
1. It was also prayed that the operation of the impugned judgment be suspended.
As stated above, the operation of the impugned judgment was partially stayed to the extent of back benefits to be awarded to Mst. Firdous Fatima, respondent No, 3, herein. But respondent No, 1, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal declined the interim relief sought by the petitioners as to not allowing her join her duties in the wake of her reinstatement ordered by respondent No,
2. The petitioners are essentially aggrieved by this part of the order dated 5.5.2014 passed by respondent No, 1.
5. In support of this petition, Syed Athar. Hassan Shah Bukhari, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the judgment dated 28.3.2014 passed by respondent No, 2, Punjab Labour Court No, II, D.G. Khan was coramnon-judice. He stresses that Mst. Firdous Fatima was not a working woman within the meaning of the Labour Laws, and as such she could not be allowed to file a grievance petition. In amplification of his arguments, he submits that the Labour Court could not assume jurisdiction in the matter. In other words, the very maintainability of the grievance petition brought by Mst. Firdous Fatima, respondent No, 3 has been questioned. In the same context, doubts have been cast on the jurisdiction of respondent No, 2, the Labour Court. He goes on to argue that the operation of the impugned judgment dated 28.3.2014 was to be ordered to be suspended as a whole and not in parts. He makes criticism of the impugned order on the ground that by ordering the petitioners to allow Mst. Firdous Fatima take up her duties as a Teacher, the Presiding Officer and respondent No, 1 has also disclosed his mind. In other words, the appeal filed by the petitioners has been made ineffective.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record appended to the writ petition with his assistance.
7. From the resume of the facts set out in the foregoing paragraphs of this order, it is abundantly clear that the petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 28.3.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No, II, D.G. Khan, respondent No, 2 and that they have already assailed the validity and vires of the said order by filing an appeal before respondent No, 1, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No, II, Multan. A perusal of the grounds of appeal filed by the petitioners shows that the questions being raised before this Court regarding the maintainability of the grievance petition filed by Mst. Firdous Fatima, respondent- No, 3 and the jurisdiction or respondent No, 2 to adjudicate upon the same have been raised by the petitioners in appeal.
Needless to say respondent No, 1 shall address itself to all the questions raised by the petitioners in the appeal filed by them. It is pertinent to mention that the learned counsel for the petitioners was specifically asked to withdraw the appeal from respondent No, 1 before he could be allowed to call into question the jurisdiction of respondent No, 2 through the instant writ petition. It was impressed upon him that duplication of proceedings are neither practicable nor permissible in law. The petitioners might either continue with their appeal before respondent No, 1 or press ahead with the instant petition, after withdrawing the appeal filed by them before respondent No,
1. It seems that the petitioners intended to eat their cake and have it. They cannot be allowed to adopt such a course at the cost/expense of the rights and interests of Mst. Firdous Fatima, respondent No, 3.
8. On the one hand, the very maintainability of this petition against an interim order passed by respondent No, 1 is open to question, especially when the main appeal filed by them before respondent No, 1 is pending adjudication and, on the other, I have found no infirmity or perversity in the impugned interim order dated 5.5.2014 passed by respondent No,
1. It rests with respondent No, 1 as to how it exercises its jurisdiction at the time of entertaining an appeal and/or how it proceeds to suspend the operation of an impugned judgment wholly or partially. Its hands cannot be forced by the petitioners and under no circumstances can they be allowed to regulate the proceedings of respondent No, 1.
9. For what has been stated above, there is no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed in limine.