1. This revision petition has been directed against the impugned order dated 31.10.2016 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad.
2. 2.Brief facts of the case as per contents of this revision petition are that the respondents filed a grievance petition on 31.3.2016 before learned Labour Court against the petitioners for regularization of their service. The respondents were recruited on daily wages basis for filtration plant by M/s Taufeeq Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. Faisalabad thereafter, the company informed TMA that regular staff of firm is working on filtration plant, the said firm did not hand over the water filter plant, to the TMA Jinnah Town, Faisalabad despite request made by TMA to Secretary Local Government. The respondents by filing fake affidavits before the learned Labour Court on 31.3.2016 has obtained the following order:-- "Notice be issued to the respondents for 16.4.2016. Till next date, the operation of the impugned verbal termination order dated 25.3.2016 is hereby dismissed."
3. In the light of above provisions`of law, learned Labour Court below has not specifically extended the interim order dated 31.3.2016, hence the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. On the basis of above illegal order the respondents filed contempt petition before the learned Labour Court below on 15.8.2016. During the proceedings of contempt petition learned Labour Court issued an order dated 31.10.2016 in which petitioners have been directed to take the respondents on duty. The impugned order dated 31.10.2016 is illegal, without sound reasoning, not a speaking order, against the law and facts and is liable to be set aside.
4. 3.Hence this revision petition on the grounds mentioned therein.
5. 4.Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is settled law that learned Labour Court must based its findings according to the law produced before it and not on surmises and conjectures, the learned Labour Court violated this principal while passing the impugned order. The learned Labour Court has passed the impugned order dated 31.10.2016 which is illegal and prejudice, without considering the proper record. The impugned order is based on mis- understanding and mis-application of law. Further contended that the learned Labour Court below has committed error in law therefore, the order is illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction and prayed that revision petition be accepted and impugned order be set aside.
6. 5.Conversely learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the grounds raised in the memo. of revision petition and argued in favour of impugned order. Further contended that the service of respondents were terminated in violation of stay order passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad. Thereafter the respondents filed a contempt petition in which the learned Labour Court declared the verbal termination order of petitioners as illegal and directed the petitioners department to reinstate the respondents which order is in accordance with law because the respondents were illegally dismissed by verbal order in violation of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan. Further prayed that the revision petition is without any justification it be dismissed.
7. 6.Arguments heard. Record perused.
8. 7 According to the facts of the case the respondents filed a grievance petition on 31.3.2016 before learned Labour Court against the petitioners for regularization of their service. The respondents were recruited on daily wages basis for filtration plant by M/s Taufeeq Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd.
9. Faisalabad thereafter, the company informed TMA that regular staff of firm is working on filtration plant, the said firm did not hand over the water filter plant, to the TMA Jinnah Town, Faisalabad despite request made by TMA. to Secretary Local Government. The respondents by filing fake affidavits before the learned Labour Court on 31.3.2016 has obtained the following order:-- "Notice be issued to the respondents for 16.4.2016. Till next date, the operation of the impugned verbal termination order dated 25.3.2016 is hereby dismissed."
10. In the light of above provisions of law, learned Labour Court below has not specifically extended the interim order dated 31.3.2016, hence the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. On the basis of above illegal order the respondents filed contempt petition before the learned Labour Court below on 15.8.2016. During the proceedings of contempt petition learned Labour Court issued an order dated 31.10.2016 in which petitioners have been directed to take the respondents on duty.
11. 8.During the course of arguments learned counsel for the petitioners without any hesitation admitted this fact that the services of respondents were verbally terminated on 25.3.2016 while the respondents filed grievance petition on 31.3.2016 after six days of their termination from service.
12. 9.Perusal of order sheet highlights that on 31.3.2016 the learned Labour Court below issued interim injunction against the v.erbal termination order dated 25.3.2016 passed by the petitioners thereafter, on 5.5.2016 the interim stay order was further extended till 24.5.2016. On 15.8.2016 the respondents filed a contempt application before the learned Labour Court against the petitioners in which the learned Labour Court again passed the impugned order dated 31.10.2016 and suspended the verbal termination order dated .25.3.2016 which has been impugned in the instant revision petition.
13. 10.There is no denial between the parties that on 25.3.2016 the service of respondents were terminated which order was challenged by the respondents in their grievance petition filed on 31.03.2016. The grievance petition is still pending before the learned Labour Court below for the recording of evidence of the parties therefore, the learned Labour Court below travelled beyond its jurisdiction while granting the main relief to the respondents prior to dilating upon the matter with the evidence of the parties which order is neither sustainable nor warranted under the law because object of passing interlocutory or order of status quo is to maintain situation obtaining on that date when party concerned had approached Court and not to create new situation. Court could not grant interlocutory relief of the nature which would amount to allowing main case without trial.
14. Relied on law reported as:-- 1997 SCM R 1508 11.This Tribunal further observed that so far there is also a dispute of handing over/taking over of additional staff (the respondents) between the petitioners and the Taufeeq Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd., therefore, the impugned order before recording the evidence of the parties is bad in the eye of law, 12.In view of the above circumstances, this revision petition is accepted impugned order dated 31.10.2016 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 4, Faisalabad is set aside and learned Labour Court below is directed to decide the illegality of termination order of respondents dated 25.3.2016 in the light of evidence of the parties.