By this judgment, I shall be disposing of to Revision Petitions (Nos. 623 and 624 of 1996), having been preferred by the 'Authorities' of the National Tubewell Construction Corporation, in assailing the soundness of the decision dated 26-6-1996, rendered by the learned Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore, at Ferozewala, granting to the respondents, petitioners before the said Court, interim injunction pendente lite. Against their apprehended ouster from service, the respondents, as petitioners, before the Labour Court, had filed grievance petitions under section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, pleading that on the strength of length of service put in by them they had attained the status of permanent workmen, and could not be removed from service, except in accordance with law, on the ground of misconduct, if at all they were alleged to have been guilty of any instance of misconduct. The Corporation, has, however, not issued them show-cause notices, served them with charge-sheets and made them to face regular enquiries, but has straightaway passed the orders of termination of their services, which orders are not sustainable in law. The Projects where they have been working are stated to be still in operation, and their services, therefore, should have been regularized and not dispensed with, in the manner it has been done, or is proposed to be done.
2. On the contrary, it was urged by the 'Authorities' of the Corporation before the Labour Court; and as revision-petitioners before this Tribunal, they have again maintained that the employment of the affectees is of contractual character and on the expiry of term of contract they are liable to lose their service and cannot insist upon their retention or continuance in service. No right guaranteed or secured by law is likely to be violated, nor has there been infringement of any terms of the contract, entitling the employees to seek relief from the Labour Court.
3. Finding, however, existence of an arguable case in favour of the employees, relief of ad interim injunction was conceded in their favour by the learned lower Court, specially as in its view the employees would be exposed to irretrievable injury and immense inconvenience, in the event of their immediate removal from service. In the course of arguments; learned counsel for the revision- petitioners, Kh. Tariq Masud, has in explicit terms given an undertaking that the Corporation people/'Authorities' will not terminate the services of the respondents (the employees), with immediate effect, but they will proceed against them in accordance with law; and if in ultimate analysis, according to the employees, they have illegally or wrongfully been dealt with, they may seek proper remedy, by having access to the competent Court. It is added that the establishment cannot evidently be restrained from- taking steps or initiating any proceedings, as regards employment of the respondent, in accordance with law.
4. I am of the view that this undertaking on the part of the revision petitioners should satisfy the respondents, and they should feel secure, for the present. If by operation of law, the respondents make a claim have become permanent workmen, entitled to protection of the Labour Laws, they F may resist, by all means, their removal from service, or an apprehended adverse action, by leading evidence. The respondents will have to establish that they have become workmen with a permanent status and the Corporation cannot proceed against them in an arbitrary manner. I would accept the revision petitions and would set aside the impugned orders dated 26-6-1996. The parties shall appear, in the Labour Court for further proceedings on 15-12-1996.