The petitioner has called in question the jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission in passing the impugned order dated 31-12-1995 whereby order dated 6-12-1995 terminating the services of respondent No. 3 was suspended till the disposal of the petition under section 22-A(8)
(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 filed by respondent No.3. It was inter alia contended that the order was bad in law and contrary to the facts involved and the same was illegal and in excess of jurisdiction, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
2. Respondent No.3 had filed an application under section 22-A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 wherein it was alleged that the said petitioner was the Vice-President of Union, namely, Ittehad Labour Union Registered and active office-bearer of the Union; C.B.A. Had given demand notice as also the strike notice under sections 26 and 28 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 respectively and during the pendency of the industrial dispute the petitioner had been dismissed from" service which amounted to unfair labour practice as the petitioner could not be dismissed except with the previous permission of the Labour Court.
3. The impugned order was interim one. The main petition was still pending. The writ petitioner was not present at the the of the passing of impugned order by Chairman, N.I..R.C. The interim order could be varied or withdrawn when both parties to the proceedings were heard by the learned Chairman, N.I.R.C. And the writ petitioner had not so far appeared before the N. I. R. C. Nor has raised any objection to the jurisdiction of the Commission.
4. The jurisdiction as challenged in the present writ petition could also be challenged by the writ petitioner before the N.I.R.C. And the Commission was the most appropriate forum to determine its own jurisdiction and lawful authority with reference to the impugned order. The present petition is therefore, premature.
5. In view of the above the writ petition is dismissed in limine