This revision petition under Section 47(5) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 aims to question the impugned judgment dated 22.02.201 1 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 09, Multan, whereby passing order on a contempt petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 a direction was issued to the Respondent Nos. 4- 5 to count the eligibility of the Respondent No. 1 for his promo tion as Foreman (BPS-16) after the completion of three years experience as a Mechanical Fitter .
2. Before adverting to the necessary facts for the disposal of this revision petition a background of instant litigation may be given. Earlier the instant revision petition was finally decided by the then learned Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No. II, Multan vide judgment dated 08.03.2012 in the terms that the same was dismissed as being not maintainable and the said judgment was assailed by the petitioner Mehmood Ahmad before the hon'ble Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan by way of Writ Petition No. 8225 of 2012, which- was accepted in terms of detailed order passed by his lordship Mr. Justice Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan and the concluding para 7 of said order is reproduced hereunder for better appreciation: "Learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal while passing the judgment dated 08.03.2012 dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner on the sole ground that the revision petition is not maintainable against the order dated 22.02.201 1. The learned Appellate Tribunal under section 47 (5) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 has also suo motu jurisdiction to take cognizance of any illegality , irregularity and perversity committed by the Labour Court falling exclusively within its jurisdiction and can pass such an order as it thinks fit to eliminate such flaws or infirmities in orders of subordinate Court. The learned Appellate Tribunal has not applied judicious mind to the plain provision of law and committed grave illegality denying exercise of its jurisdiction vested/ conferred in it under Section 47 (5) of the Act ibid, as such, the judgment dated 08.03.2012 is not sustainable and the same is hereby set aside, case is remanded to the learned Labour Appellate Tribunal, Multan to firstly decide the following questions: a) Whether the Labour Court has a jurisdiction to entertain contempt petition under any provision of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010? b) Whether in the presence of the final judgment passed in a grievance petition, a new judgment contrary to the above can 'be passed in a contempt petition by the same Court?
In view of above, the Labour Appellate Tribunal, Multan is directed to firstly ascertain to aforementioned questions then decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on 05.01.2016.
For deciding the above said two questions proposed by the hon'ble Judge of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, it seems appropriate to detail first the relevant facts of instant matter . The Respondent No. 1 namely Amjad Hussain son of Muhammad Hanif cited in the revision petition originally fled a grievance petition under Section 41 of Industrial Relations Act, 2008 against the petitioner Mehmood Ahmad and Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. before the Punjab Labour Court No. 09, Multan with a claim that he had been employed/ inducted as Mechanic Fitter in BPS- 13 Phase-I, GENCO-III, Muzaf fargarh and he possessed three years DAE in Mechanical Engineering besides other technical education and during service passed all promotion examinations and having served the above said power generation company for long 13 years as Fitter outweighed all other employees in the said category as being diploma holder in the seniority list and thus was having right to promotion as Forem an in BPS-16 since 21.03.1997 under Rule 1(2) of WAPDA Service Rules, 1980 but the employer/ respondents power generation company were not promoting the Respondent No. 1 to the above said post despite repeated demands, whereas another employee namely Muhammad Hammad Raza of equal status had been granted such promotion. It was alleged in the grievance petition that the official respondents on the other hand were interested to promote the petitioner and other private respondents as ' Foreman (BS-16) in violation of WAPDA Service Rules, 1980. The Respondent No. 1 thus ultimately prayed for issuance of a direction to the official respondents of power generation company to consider the Respondent No. 1 for promotion as Foreman BS-16 as being the most eligible and senior candidate for the said post and abstain from promoting the petitioner and other private respondents. The petitioner , his co employees as well as official respondents of power generation company opposed the grievance petition of the Respondent No. 1 by citing and relying upon the criteria and quota of the posts meant for employees having experience and, seniority plus performance reports. The official respondents of power generation company further took the stance that service rules as well as guidance provided by parent body of WAPDA, Lahore did not permit the grant of desire expressed by the Respondent No. 1, so his grievance petition was required to be dismissed.
The learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 09, Multan after hearing arguments on application for temporary injunction as well as main grievance petition finally disposed of grievance petition of the Respondent.
No. 1 vide judgment dated 22.04.2010 by recording detailed reasons in Paragraphs No. 7 to 9 of the said judgment, which are reproduced hereunder for better understanding of the controversy: "7. According to WAPDA Rules, 1980 to which reference has been made by the petitioner for agitating his seniority over o Respondents No 2 to 4 which have also, not been denied by Chief Executive GENCO-III, Muzaf fargarh in the written reply , the post of Foreman has been upgraded from BPS-12 to BPS-16. The procedure for appointment for the said post has been given in WAPDA Rules, 1980 and 25% quota has been fixed by direct recruitment of the persons, who are Matriculate with first class boiler competency certificate plus at least 10 years experience in BPS- 9 to 15 in a large steam power station or 3 years diploma holders from Government Polytechnic Institute with 3 years service in BPS-1 1 and 12. 75% posts of the Foreman were to be filled through promotion from 3 categories under WAPDA Rules, 1980 i.e. (a) employees with matriculate qualification plus first class boiler competency certificate with at least 10 years experience in BS-9 to, BS-15 in large steam power station, (b) 3 years diploma holders from government polytechnic institute with 3 years service in BPS-1 1 and 12, (c) employees technically good literate with 10 years experience in BPS-1 1 to 13.
8. The said WAPDA Rules, 1980 have not been abrogated. The respondents have not produced any substantive material to indicate that the said Promotion Rules 1980 have been changed/ cancelled. The promotion of 'Mr. Hammad Raza 3 years polytechnic diploma holder with 3 years experience has not been denied by Respondent No. and Respondents No. 2 to 4 in their respective written replies. The Chief Executive i.e. Respondent No. 1 has alleged in the written reply that case of Mr. Hammad Raza Fitter is different from that of the petitioner . However , I am unable to understand as to how the case of Mr. Hammad Raza is different from that of the petitioner . If he has been promoted as a Foreman after 3 years experience then why the petitioner who possesses similar qualification and more experience cannot be given this benefit.
9. The corollary of the above discussion is that the grievance petition is hereby disposed of with the direction to the Chief Executive GENCO-III Muzaf fargar h to prepare the seniority list of all the Mechanical Fitters working in GENCO-III, Muzaf fargarh afresh keeping in" view the WAPDA Rules and Regulations and then consider the promotion cases of the eligible Fitters in accordance with law".
As is apparent from the record none of the party to the grievance petition challen ged the impugned judgment of learned labour Court, Multan dated 22.04.2010 by way of appeal or revision before next forum. In the said background the Respondent No. 1 Amjad Hussain son of Muhammad Hanif again approached the Punjab Labour Court No. 09, Multan with a contempt petition under the provisions of Industrial Relations Act, 2008 citing Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Tunio, Chief Officer, GENCO-III, TPS, Colony , Muzaf fargarh as respondent with a grouse that although in compliance with the direction earlier issued by the learned labour Court, Multan vide judgment dated 22.04.2010 the respondents authorities had prepared a seniority list of Mechanical Fitters, TPS, Muzaf fargarh on 14.07.2010 in which the name of the Respondent No. 1 figured at Serial No. 18 and that being so the Respondent No. 1 had no immediate chance for promotion as Fitter Mechanical and the above said act of the respondents was violative of direction issued by the learned labour Court vide judgment dated 22.04.2010 as the seniority list had not been prepared in accordance with WAPDA Service Rules, 1980. The Respondent No. 1 thus ultimately sought implementation of earlier judgment dated 22.04.2010 in letter and spirit. The respondent cited in the contempt petition vehemently opposed the said application as being not maintainable and unjustified because the judgment of the learned ' labour Court dated 22.04.2010 had been already implemented. The learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 09, Multan disposed of the contempt petition for reasons recorded in Paragraph Nos. 6 & 7 of the impugned judgment dated 22.02.201 1 reading asunder: "6. In the judgment of this Court dated 22.04.2010 in Para No, 7, the procedure for making appointment for the post of Foreman has been given, while referring to WAPDA Rules, 1980, this Court observed that 25% quota for the appointment of the post of Foreman has been fixed by direct recruitment of the persons who are matriculate with first class Boiler competency certificate and at least 10 years experience in BS-9 to 'BS-15 in a large steam Power Station or three years-Diploma Holders from Government Poly Technique Institute with three years service in BS-1 1 and BS-12, while 75% posts of the Foreman are to be filled through promotion from three categories i.e. (A)
Employees with matriculate qualification plus first class boiler competency certificate and at least 10 years experience in BS-9 to BS-15 in a large Stream Power Station (B) Three years Diploma Holders from Government Poly Technique Institute with three years service in BS-1 1 to BS-13.
7. The petitioner falls in category 'B, so his eligibility for the promotion for Foreman (BS-16) would be counted since the completion of his three years experience as a Mechanical Fitter as that of Mr. Hamad Raza, who has already been promoted as a Foreman (BS-16) since 25.9.1995 after the completion of 3 years period in BS-1 1-12. The fresh seniority list dated 4.7.2010 has not been prepared keeping , in view the aforementioned WAPDA Service Rules, 1980. As such the judgment of this Court dated 22.4.2010 has not been implemented by the Chief Executive Officer, GENCO, III, Muzaf fargarh in letter and spirit, who is directed to prepare the seniority list of the Mechanical Fitters keeping in view the WAPDA Service Rules, 1980 strictly in accordance with law and then take further steps for the promotion of eligible Mechanical Fitters as Foreman in accordance with law within the maximum period of one month. The petition stands disposed of accordingly".
As mentioned above the order passed on contempt petition by the learned labour Court, Multan dated 22.02.201 1 was challenged before this forum by way of revision petition, which was earlier dismissed by the then learned Chairman, Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No. II, Multan as being not maintainable vide judgment dated 08.03.2012, which was challenged before the hon'ble Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan in writ petition and the result of that exercise has been noted above. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard on the above proposed two questions formulated by the hon'ble Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan as well as the main revision petition.
Question No 1, Whether the Labour Court has a jurisdiction to entertain contempt petition under any provision of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010?
For answering the above question during arguments the, learned counsel for the parties were not at variance that under the scheme of law propounded in Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the contempt petition under any provision of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 but the said forum has only power under section 33(8) of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 for purpose of implementation of the decision rendered by the labour Court within a prescribed time specified in the decision and in case of non implementation 'the offender can be punis hed with an imprisonment, which may extend to three months or with fine and that too by adopting the procedure prescribed under a complaint. Elaborating the said issue the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 additionally argued that although his client had filed a petition with a prayer for implementation of earlier judgment of labour Court dated 22.04.2010 in its letter and spirit but due to misconception and poor knowledge of law on the headin g of such petition it was inadvertently noted as contempt petition. In this regard citing the cases "Olas Khan and others v. Chairman NAB through Chairman and others" (PLD 2018 SC 40) and "Pakistan Fisheries Ltd., Karachi and others v. United Bank Ltd." (PLD 1993 SC 109), the learned counsel argued that mere mention or reference to a wrong provision of law for invocation of that power is not a bar to the exercise of that power . Added further that the hon'ble last Court of the country in the above rulings has declared that act of citing or relying on wrong provision of law to assume jurisdiction over a lis was of no . consequence, provided the Court otherwise had jurisdiction under the Constitution, statute or any other provision of law to pass the order . Concluding his arguments on the above question the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submitted that the learned labour Court in this case in line with the legal provision relating to implementation of main judgment through the order dated 22.02.201 1 had merely restricted his power to the extent of implementation of main earlier judgment i.e. 22.04.2010 and had nowhere hinted intention of prosecuting the power generation company GENCO under contempt law. Viewed in the above context this forum is left with no hesitation to hold finally that the labour Court has no jurisdiction to entertain contempt petition under any provision of Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010. Nevertheless the labour Court possesses power under Section 33(8) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010 to implement its judgment and for this purpose can even award punishment of imprisonment with fine in the manner referred to above.
3. Question No. 2, Whether in the presence of the final judgment passed in a grievance petition, a new judgment contrary to the above can be passed in a contempt petition by the same Court?
For resolving above question the learned counsel for the petitioner during argume nts was of the firm opinion that the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 GENCO authorities had squarely implemented the main judgment of learned labour Court, Multan dated 22.04.2010 after constituting a Scrutiny Committee comprising of senior officers of the company and formulated the desired seniority list of employees, which had been circulated amongst the stakeholders and on account of their such act the main judgment dated 22.04.2010 stood complied with in its letter and spirit and that being so the Respondent No. 1 was left with only one kind of remedy , which was to challenge the seniority list prepared in the light of labour Court judgment dated 22.04.2010 through a fresh grievance petition and it was quite illegal on his part to file contempt petition, which otherwise did not lie under the law. Further argued that by passing judgment dated 22.02.201 1 on the contempt petition the learned labour Court had exceeded its limits and power and for all purposes and intents had passed a new judgment without jurisdiction, hence the question be answered in favour of his client. The learned counsel representing the Respondent Nos. 3 & 5 supported the view of learned counsel for the petitioner . The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1, however , making submissions on the above questio n was of the view that judgment dated 22.02.201 1 passed by the learned labour Court, Multan was not a new judgment but on the move of his client was an effort to implement the main earlier judgment dated 22.04.2010 because the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 either in connivance with the petitioner and other employees or for unintelligible reasons had miserably failed to implement the earlier main judgment of labour Court in its letter and spirit, so his client was well within his legal right to approach the said learned Court for grant. of relief.
4. After considering the above submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties in the light of applicable law particularly provided in Section 33 read with Section 45 of the Punjab. Industrial Relations Act, 2010, which under sub-clause (2) mandates a labour Court to act as a Civil Court and exercise the same powers as are vested under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) for the purpose of adjudicatin g and determining any industrial dispute. Keeping in view the above provisions, undeniably a judgment dated 22.04.2010 was delivered in favour of Respondent No. 1 with a direction to the Chief Executive GENCO-III, Muzaf fargarh to prepare the seniority list of all the Mechanical Fitters working in GENC O-III, Muzaf fargarh afresh keeping in view the WAPDA Service Rules, 1980 and then consider the promotion cases of the eligible Fitters in accordance with law. In Paragraph No. 7 of the said judgment (above noted in para 3 of this order) the learned labour Court had referred and discussed the applicability of WAPDA Service Rules, 1980. The Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 indeed in compliance with the above referred judgment dated 22.04.2010 formulated a fresh seniority list, which not satisfying or redressing the grievance of the Respondent No. 1, he filed a contempt petition obviously under the wrong provision of law, whereas he was required to file complaint under Section' 33 (8) of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010.
Nevertheless ignoring his such fault as inconsequential for the arguments adopted by the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 1 based upon the rulings of apex Court of the country the question requiring determination is whether the learned labour Court through an order dated 22.02.201 1 passed a new judgment. For this purpose seeking guidance from Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which categorically permits the Court executing decree to determine all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which decree was passed relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of decree while executing the decree and there is no need to file a separate suit. In the instant matter the learned labour Court had unequivocally instructed the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to prepare fresh seniority list in the light of WAPDA Service Rules, 1980. As per relevant applicable said Rules, 1980 there were three categories of employees on the basis of quota with different structure for promotion on the basis of their educational qualification and different period of experience. Obviously the employees engaged on the basis of three categories quota were essentially required to be treated in the matter of promotion on the basis of their qualification and experience separately after devising a fair formula of share in promotion and mere insistence of the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to issue only single list of seniority because their ,parent body (WAPDA) so desired being an absurd excuse, consequently generated elements or feelings of discontent and discrimination amongst its employees; who were having better special qualifications and short experience as compared to other categories employees recruited on the basis of quota. The learned labour Court in the order of implementation of the judgment dated 22.02.201 1 citing the above narrated reasons through just and legal order held rightly that earlier judgment of the said Court dated 22.04.2010 had not been implemented by the Chief Executive Officer GENCO in letter and spirit and issued necessary directions to the Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 to prepare the seniority list of Mechanical Fitters keeping in view the WAPDA Service Rules, 1980 strictly in accordance with law and then take further steps for the promotion of eligible Mechanical Fitters as Foreman within the maximum period of one month. It is thus finally answered that the learned labour Court had not passed a new judgment contrary to the earlier judgment but had fairly and legally passed order for correction of wrong for the purpose of satisfaction of earlier judgment, which was otherwise a permissible legal course as referred to above.
5. Since the above two questions stand answered against the petitioner , who by way of revision petition had challenged the order of learned labour Court passed at the stage of implementation of the judgment as being illegal, without jurisdiction, void ab-initio and outcome of excessive powers on the grounds exhaustively discussed and held above against him, therefore, the revision petition filed by him found to be sans any merit is dismissed accordingly . A copy of this order be sent to the learned labour Court, Multan for information and file of revision petition to records.