DECISION During the pendency of a petition under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the petitioner-Union filed this application fog issuance of a stay order with respect to termination of two of his employees. This decision will dispose of the application for stay order.
2. The relevant facts are as follows.-The Pakistan Central Cotton Committee, Karachi introduced "Integrated Post Control Scheme" at Lyallpur. The employees of Lyallpur formed a Trade Union and have been raising industrial disputes etc. Recently, the employer decided to transfer the scheme to Agriculture Research Council which is a separate establish--ment. This transfer was challenged by the petitioner-Union under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. On 16-10-75 two of the employees were terminated. The order of termination reads as under :- "Due to termination of Pest Forecast Scheme, Punjab, you have been rendered surplus to our requirements. Your services with the Pakistan Central Cotton Committee, are, therefore, no longer required. Your services are, therefore, terminated with immediate effect on payment of notice pay in lieu of notice period.
You are directed to collect your dues from your Presiding Officer on any working day."
3. Aggrieved by the above termination the Union filed an application for stay order with a prayer that the order of termination be suspended till decision of main case under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
4. The application has been resisted by the employer. The petitioner---Union based its case on the ground that an industrial dispute was pending before the conciliator, therefore, no employee could be removed without the permission of the conciliator as required by section 47 of the Ordinance section 47 reads as under :- "No employer shall while any conciliation proceedings before an Arbitrator, a Labour Court or Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute are pending, alter to the disadvantage of any workman concerned in such dispute, the conditions of service applic--able to him before the commencement of the conciliation proceedings or of the proceedings before the Arbitrator, the Labour Court or Tribunal, as the case may be, nor shall he-
(a) save with the permission of the Conciliator, while any conciliation proceedings are pending, or
(b) save with the permission of the Arbitrator, the Labour Court or Tribunal, while any proceedings before the Arbitrator, Labour Court, Tribunal are pending, discharge, dismiss or otherwise punish any workman except for misconduct not connected with such dispute.
2. Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1) an officer of a registered Trade Union shall not during the pendency of any proceedings referred to in subsection (1) be di3chargedh dismissed or otherwise punished for misconduct, except with the previous permission of the Labour Court."
5. Mr. Mahmood A. Ghani, the learned Representative of the employer argued that the above section covers the cases of discharge, dismissal or punishment to any worker. He said that termination simpliciter was not covered by the above provision of law. It may be stated here that the termination order shows that the services of two employees were rendered surplus and so they were terminated. In this connection reliance was placed on Zeal Pak Cement Factory, Hyderabad v.
Chairman, West Pakistan Industrial Court, Lahore (1965 PLC 216) a case decided by a Full Bench of the Supreme Court. In this case 19 workers were terminated by way of retrenchment. It was held that such a termination did not attract the control of Industrial Court under section 30 of the Ordinance; Section 30 of the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1947 is analogous to section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. This authority is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. This authority was followed by the Industrial Appellate Tribunal in Messrs Saifee Development Corporation, Karachi v. Inam-ur-Rehman (1969 PLC 459). In view of the above authorities I agree with the learned Representative of the employer that the case of the two employees was not covered under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, because it is a case of termination simpliciter and that they were not removed from service by way of punishment.
6. It was further argued on behalf of the employer that a Labour Court cannot award any interim relief which is whole relief claimed. It was stated that if any stay order is issued it will amount to whole relief which the employee can claim at the final adjudication. In this connection reliance was placed on Delhi Cloth & General Mills v. Rameshwar Dayal and another (1961 PLC 555) a case decided by the Supreme Court of India. In this case it was observed: "When an Industrial Tribunal is considering a complaint under section 33-A of tile Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and it has finally to decide whether a workman should be re-instated or not, it would not be open to the Tribunal to order re-instatement as an interim relief because that would amount to giving the workman at the outset tie relief to which he would be entitled only if the employer failed in the proceedings. An interim relief should not be the whole relief which a workman would get if he succeeded finally."
It appears to me that proper remedy for the terminated employee would be to go to a Junior Labour Court for re-instatement and not to ask for a stay order from this Court in an application, pending under section 34 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Such an application lies where a pre-determined right exists. It will not lie if it is to by ascertained if any order of the employer is in violation of law or otherwise illegal.
7. For the foregoing reasons I am satisfied that no stay order should be issued in this case.
Accordingly, the application in rejected.