1. The General Secretary, P. P. L. Workers' Union, Rattan Chand Road, Lahore, petitioner, filed a petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969; against the Manage--ment, Progressive Papers Limited, Rattan Chand Road, Lahore, respondent, on 9-5-1970, and the Office was directed that a Notice be issued to the respondent for reply on 26-5-1970. On 12-5-1970, the petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. to the effect that in spite of the fact that proceedings were pending between the parties, the respondent served notices of dismissal from service dated 10-5-1970 on the following four active workers of the Union:-
(1) Mr. Hamid Akhtar, Assistant Editor, Imroze, President, Punjab Union of Journalists;
(2) Mr. Muhammad Saeed, Lino Operator.
(3) Mr. Abdul Ghani Chaudhri, Stenographer, Pakistan Times, Lahore;
(4) Mr. Mahmud Butt, Staff Artist, The Pakistan Times; It was further mentioned that it was apprehended that the respondent proposed to immediately serve the notices of dismissal from service on the rest of the following 8 persons :- (1)Mr. A. T. Chaudhri, Senior Assistant Editor, Pakistan Times, President, P. P. L. Workers' Union
(2) Mr. Abdullah Malik, Chief Reporter, Imroze, Vice----President, Punjab Union of Journalists;
(3) Mr. Minhaj Barna, Senior Reporter, Pakistan Times, Secretary-General, Punjab Union of Journalists;
(4) Mr. I. A. Rehman, Assistant Editor, Pakistan Times;
(5) Mr. Abbas Athar, Junior Sub-Editor Imroze Secretary. P. P. L. Workers' Union (6)Mr. Shabbir Hussain, Lino Operator, Pakistan Times Press;
(7) Mr. Abdul Qadir, Foreman, Pakistan Times Press;
(8) Mr. A. A. Gilt, Lino Operator, Pakistan Times Press.
2. It was prayed that this Court may grant ad interim injunction directing the respondent to maintain the status quo as obtaining on 9-5-1970 when the application under section 34 of the Ordinance was submitted and was admitted to the regular hearing. It was specifically prayed that the respondent be restrained by Chairs the injunction from giving effect to the Orders of dismissal on the four persons named above and from serving similar notices on the rest of the eight persons also named above. It was further prayed that in the interest of justice and equity, an immediate ex parte injunction be issued till the determination of the applica--tion. This Court, on that day i.e. 12- 5-1970, passed the following Order:--- "Heard counsel. Notice. Ad interim injunction so far as eight persons mentioned in the paragraph 6 as prayed for to come up on 26-5-1970. Copy of this order be given ''dasti"
3. This order was challenged by the respondent in the High Court in Writ Petition No. 732 of 1970. On 11- 7-1970, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition for the reasons to be recorded later. Thereafter, the respondent on 13-7-1970, filed an application under Order XXXIX, rule 4, C. P. C. for the vacation of the stay order granted by this Court on t2-5-1970 and the dismissal of the Miscellaneous application. In that application, which was accompanied by an affidavit, it was mentioned that after the writ petition had been dismissed, Mr. Justice Mushtaq Hussain was pleased to clarify that the Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that it was premature and that the respondent- company should raise all its objections before the Labour Court which had yet to pass final orders in the case.
4. The petitioner resisted this application not only on merits but also on technical grounds that on the basis of proceedings in the High Court, on 11-7-1970, the High Court's Order dismissing the, petition would not be restricted to the ground that since other remedy was available, the High Court would not interfere at that stage. It was contended that since the matter in issue was identical with the matter in issue in the High Court, this Court should not proceed in the case unless the judgment was made available. In support of this contention, Mr. Mumtaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, filed an affidavit. Mr. S. M. Shafiq, Advocate, also filed an affidavit to the effect that it was a matter of fact that the High Court dismissed the writ petition being premature and that it was further clarified by the High Court that since of final order had been passed by the Labour Court in which matter, the other objections be taken before that very Court which was seized of the matter.
5. Arguments were heard at length not only on this preliminary objection but also on merits. This controversy has now been set at naught by the judgment of the High Court. In paragraph 11, it is mentioned, "Since the West Pakistan Labour Court has the power to adjudicate upon the question of its jurisdiction and that certainly constitutes an adequate and effective alternate remedy, the writ petition before us is premature and is dismissed as such. The parties may appear before the West Pakistan Labour Court and make their submissions so as to enable that Court to adjudicate upon them. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs".
6. The ad interim injunction was issued in respect of only 8 persons, namely, Mr. .A. T. Chaudhri; Mr. Abdullah Malik ; Mr. Minhaj Barna; Mr. I. A. Rahman; Mr. Abbas Athar ; Mr. Shabbir Hussain ; Mr. Abdul Qadir and Mr. A. A. Gill. In the application under Order XXXIX, rule& 1 and 2, C. P. C. it was men-- tioned that it was apprehended that the respondent proposed to immediately serve notices of dismissal from service on the afore--mentioned 8 persons whereas dismissal order dated 10-5- 1970 'tad already been served on the following four persons
(1) Mr. Hamid Akhtar; (2) Mr. Muhammad Saeed; (3) Mr. Abdul Ghani; (4) Mr. Mahmud Butt.
7. It was contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that the interim injunction should not have been issued because the order of dismissal had already been passed on 10-5-1970. The learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, contend--ed that no order of dismissal had been received by 12-5-1970. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order of dismissal dated 10-5-1970 was in fact passed on that day. According to him, even after the event, a pre-dated order could be fabricated. This contention has no force because these 8 persons, in their petitions under Standing Order 18 of the West Pakistan industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
8. Ordinance, 1968, filed by them against their dismissal, have categorically stated that they were dismissed on '10-5-1970. It is a fact that the orders of dismissal of these 8 persons were sent by Registered post on 11-5-1970 and were not delivered till 14-5-1970 because Mr. Mumtaz Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, during arguments, showed me an envelope addressed to one of these eight persons which showed that it was sent by Registered Poll on 11-5-170 and was delivered on 14-5-1970 because on 12- -1970 and 13-5-1970, the addressee was not available. According to section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the service shall be deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course by post unless it is proved to the contrary. In the present case, it has A not been proved to the contrary that the orders of dismissal were not 'sent on 11-5-1970 and therefore, their service shall be deemed to have been effected on that day.
9. New the point which requires determination is as to whether the order dated 12-5-1970 could have been passed in respect of these 8 persons in spite of the fact that their order of dismissal had already become effective on 10-5-1970. In the case, Imam Bakhsh v. Province of West Pakistan (1970 8 C M R 49), it was held that the injunction should not have been issued in the circumstances because the order of removal from service had already become effective. In the case, Chiragh Din v. Thai Development Authority (1970 SCMR 29), it was held that the Court has no jurisdiction to ht direct restoration of possession within Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C., when a person had already been dispossessed.
10. In view of the above, I vacate the order dated 12-5-1970, granting ad interim injunction and dismiss the Miscellaneous application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2, C. P. C. filed by the petitioner.