' The twenty-five appeals mentioned above emanate from the single decision dated 21-5-1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the grievance petitions of the respondents were accepted and they were directed to be put back on the posts, wherefrom they were either terminated or reverted to the lower posts. Since common questions of facts and law are involved and as all the appeals arise from the same decision they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
'
2. Some complaint was made to the President of Pakistan about the working of the P.U.T.C., whereupon the Chief Martial Law Administrator directed vide Exh. R-1 the Federal Inspection Committee to hold enquiry and submit report under M.L.O.
58. The Federal Inspection. Committee (hereinafter to be described as F.I.C.) reported that the existing system of checking the buses was unsatisfactory and suggested that 80% posts of senior ticket examiners and ticket examiners (herein after to be described as STEs and TEs) be abolished and for checking buses Magistrates be deputed from the saving made from the abolition of the abovementioned posts. Extract from the said suggestion is Exh. R-2 in the case of Muhammad Rafiq. The Chief Martial Law Administrator (hereinafter to be described as C.M.L.A.) accorded approval that was conveyed to the P.U.T.C. By the Section Officer vide Exh. R-3 (the document is on the file of Muhammad Rafiq). It was suggested to the Board of Directors in the meeting that the approval be given to (a) purchase of Toyota Hiace Diesel Mini Buses for checking; (b) declare the posts of all TE/STE as redundant: and (c) allow employment of suitable persons in NPS-11 for the checking team. This suggestion was not proved in evidence before the learned lower Court. The Board is said to have given approval to the above mentioned suggestion vide annexure 'G' (now placed on the file). However, the original or copy of the approval given by the Board is not on the record.
3. The learned lower Court has held that any action taken under M.L.O. 58 cannot be challenged in any Court but has held that the Board has not acted upon the direction of the F.I.C. As approved by the C.M.L.A., inasmuch as no Magistrates and their staff have been engaged to carry out checking.
The finding that an action taken under M.L.O. 58 cannot be challenged has been attacked in cross- objections. No impressive arguments have been led on the point. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that M.L.O. 58 is not appiicable for scrutinizing the working of P.U.T.C. My attention has been drawn towards para.4(b) of M.L.O.
58. No doubt clause (b) of para. 4 does not deal with the point under discussion but this is wrong that there is no provision in M.L.O. 58 to ask F.I.C. To hold enquiry into the working of an establishment of transport like the P.U.T.C. The relevant clause is (a) of para. 4 of M.L.O.
58. It reads as under:- "(a) Working of any Ministry, Division, Department or office of the Federal Government or any Department, branch or office of a Corporation or any other Institution established or controlled by the Federal Government or together with a Provincial Government, and take such immediate measures as it deems fit for efficient working of such Ministry, Division, Department or office of the Federal Government or of such Department, branch or office of a Corporation or Institution."
P.U.T.C. Is an establishment and a transport and is being controlled by the Federal Government, so clause (a) of para. 4 applies to it. There is no evidence that Magistrates have not been appointed or are not intended to be engaged for checking. We are concerned with the abolition of posts and the reversion or termination of the incumbents. This is not denied that the C.M.L.A. Approved the suggestion of the F.I.C. That 80% posts of STEs and TEs be abolished. This part of the suggestion of F.I.C. Is independent of the second one. The other suggestion is about the new mode of checking. If that mode has not so far been adopted, it does not mean that the first part cannot be acted upon or if acted upon, cannot be denied to have been done under M.L.O.
58. The Board has not independently taken upon the matter to decide if in reality the previous system of checking through STEs and TEs was unsatisfactory or not. Only as suggested by the F.I.C.
The abolition of posts has been made. This is true that in the meeting, it was suggested that all posts of STEs and TEs be done away with, but since in the petition it was not asserted that the Board has not given any decision, so the original or copy of the decision of the Board has not been brought on the record. Even if it be said that the approval of the Board is for abolition of all the posts, this order will not be under M.L.O. 58 to the extent it exceeds percentage of 80. But the whole order cannot be taken as not to have been passed under M.L.O.
58. If without the intervention of the F.I.C. And the C.M.L.A. The Board had directed that all the posts of STEs and TEs were redundant, of course on facts and merits the decision could have been challenged. Para. 15 of M.L.O. 58 is quite clear which expressly bars the jurisdiction of the Courts and Tribunals. When once it is said that action has been taken under M.L.O. 58, the jurisdiction of the Court is barred to the extent the action has been taken under the said order. It was argued at the Bar that the termination of posts of STEs and TEs has not yet reached the percentage of eighty. If and when it actually exceeds, only then it can be said that the action is in excess of the action taken under M.L.O.
58. Cause of grievance at that time may arise to only those who may be hit by the abolition of posts in excess of 80%. It has not been shown by the respondents that reduction in excess of 80% has been made. Checking in the manner different from the one suggested by the F.I.C.
Permanently or in a stop-gap arrangethent cannot cause any grievance to the terminated or reverted STEs and TEs. It is a matter between the C.M.LA. And the Board. They agree to a different mode of checking or Magistrates may be deputed. After the previous system of checking has been validly changed, the terminated or -everted STEs and TEs cease to have any concern and cannot have any grouse. It is the function of the Board to consult the C.M.LA. But the respondents cannot say that since the mode of checking suggested by the F.I.C. Has not been adopted the abolition of posts is in any manner redundant or not covered by M.L.O.
58.
4. The learned representative of some of the respondents namely Mr. Nazir Ahmad Naz has argued that the copies of the documents brought on the record are inadmissible in evidence since the authorities who attested the said copies were not examined. This argument is fallacious. When certified copies are admissible the attesting authorities are not to be produced such as in the case of public documents. PLD 1982 Karachi 188 has been cited but no such observation has been made therein. It has been observed that the landlord and his rent collector did not come in the witness-box to deny that the rent was offered to them and that they refused to receive.
5. In short the finding of the learned lower Court is not correct that since no Magistrate and staff have been deputed, the abolition of posts has not been D made pursuant to the direction of the F.I.C. "The action in this respect to this extent has been taken under M.L.O. 58 and thus vide its para. 15 it cannot be challenged in the Courts."
6. On certain facts some respondents have brought cross-objections complaining that the learned lower Court did not decide even though they had been raised in the pleadings and evidence had been produced. Cross-objections can be raised on the points decided against the respondents and not on the points not decide by the lower Court. So, it is not necessary to decide the cross- objections in appeal. The objection that the learned lower Court has wrongly held that an order passed under M.L.O. 58 cannot be challenged has been dealt with by me above. The said objection is disallowed.
7. Since the learned lower Court has not decided other facts in issue such as whether the rule of first come last go as required by Standing Order 13 of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1963 was adhered to or not, the cases are to be remanded.
8. As a result I accept all the appeals and rejecting the cross-objection that an action taken under M.L.O. 58 can be challenged, and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, remand all the cases for decision of the remaining points in controversy between the parties.