This matter be considered as notice case. Through this single judgment Writ Petitions Nos. 5251- S/96 to 5261-S/96 stand disposed of.
2. Brief facts of the instant petitions are that the petitioners were working with the respondents for a long the. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 kept the petitioners as work-charge employees in their record.
The petitioners' stand was that they were working as workmen against the permanent jobs and they applied for regularisation of their services by presenting as grievance petition under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in the Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan. Their petition was accepted vide order dated 31-1-19 )4 and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were directed to regularise the services of the petitioners from the date of their appointments. Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 preferred an appeal against the order dated 31-1-1994 which was dismissed in default, an application for restoration of appeal was given by the respondents while on 31-10-1995 the respondents terminated the services of the petitioners as work-charge employees. The petitioners again presented an application before the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan for the implementation of the order dated 31-1-1994 and for reinstatement as the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 withdrew the appeal unconditionally. The learned Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan granted the prayer of the petitioners vide judgment dated 18-6-1996. This judgment was further assailed in appeal before the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal suspended the operation of the said judgment subject to all just and legal exceptions on 8-7-1996. Now the petitioners have assailed the order dated 8-7-1996 purely on legal premise in view of the provisions of section 38(8) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 whereby it is provided that any injunctive order passed by the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal shall stand vacated on the expiration of twenty days of passing of such order and for this purpose the instant writ petition alongwith connected petitions on the similar subject-matter have been filed in this Court.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the abovementioned mandatory statutory proviso the injunctive order of respondent No. I dated 8-7-1996 has been vacated on 28-7-1996 and now this order has neither any force of law nor it is binding or operative and also not in the field, therefore, according to the order of- learned Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan dated 8-6-1996, respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are under legal obligation to reinstate the petitioners in service through regularisation of their appointment.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have vehemently opposed these writ petitions, the submissions are that against an interlocutory order passed by Court below the instant writ petitions are not maintainable. Further submitted that petitioners being work-charge employees do not come within the definition of workman as defined in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, therefore, their petition under section 25-A of the I.R.O. Before the ' Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan was not competent nor that Court could have the jurisdiction to deal with the matter. This judgment being without jurisdiction even not set aside on appeal is not an affective judgment.
Further submitted that a work-charge employee cannot be defined as workman, relies upon Province of Punjab through Secretary, Housing, Physical and Environmental Planning Department and 3 others v. Gul Hassan and 33 others (1992 PLC 924). Further contended that the WASA has been abolished by the Government and there are no funds available to the department and they cannot regularise the present petitions to permanent posts.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. The first question whether interlocutory order can be assailed in writ petition or not, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Kohinoor Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Punjab Labour Tribunal and others 980 PLC 800- f. This is an interlocutory order assailed in the Writ Petition No. 222.0/80, decided on 31-3-1980, it is held that a Court is bound to respect command about vacation of stay order after twenty days of entertainment of appeal against reinstatement order of Labour Court although it may be harsh in so far as an employer is concerned it is designed to achieve object of social justice in matter of relationship of employer and employees. This need is catered by inserting proviso to subsection (8) of section 38 which is in dire with matter of Government and concerns principle of social justice. It was held that no exception can be taken in writ jurisdiction to vacation of stay order in pursuance of proviso to subsection (8) of section 38. He has also relied on Mst. Nawab Bibi and another v.
Chairman, Allotment Committee and others PLD 1987 SC 145. Past and closed transaction no appeal against the decision of High Court preferred by an aggrieved party, such judgment of High Court however. (overruled and) set aside in appeal against judgment of High Court in another writ petition. Held, concluded rights of parties under decision of High Court against which no appeal filed, not to be re-opened by judgment of Supreme Court nor benefit of law laid down by Supreme Court under Article 189 of Constitution to be available to respondents. It is held that any determination of Court not, set aside in appeal will remain in the field irrespective of quality of determination of question of fact and law. Rights of parties thereunder to assume finality and to take colour of "past and. Closed transaction".
5. Since the provisions of law under section 38(8) of the Ordinance are in the nature of the command of law and that is available to a large class of persons to which no exemption can be taken for dispensation of justice, therefore, the instant writ petition against an injunctive order which stands vacated by command of law is competent as the learn--d counsel for respondents concedes that twenty days provided by law are already expired in the case of the injunctive order given by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, therefore, in view of the equitable justice it is the command of law under the provisions of section 38(8) of I.R:O. Must be dispensed with in the discharge of equitable justice.
6. The last contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that WAPDA is facing financial crises is not convincing as the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed before this Court Letter No. 2401-02/DW/WASA, dated 19-11-1995 where the Director of Works Water and Sanitation Agency, Multan has recommended the reinstatement of the terminated persons as their recovery of WASA charges were badly suffering because these persons were well familiar with their Halqas/work i.e. Preparation/distribution of bills, therefore, he has requested that the terminated persons be reinstated in respect of work or permission for appointing new persons may be accorded to improve the recovery of WASA dues.
7. In view of what I have discussed above the question whether the nature of work assigned to the petitioners makes them work-charge employee or workman and impact of the order of the learned Punjab Labour Court No.9, Multan dated 31-1-1994 and 18-6-1996 is to be decided by the learned Punjab SNW, ac Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore and this Court constrains from giving any observation in respect of the merits of the case.
8. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances these writ petitions are accepted and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to comply with the command of law as provided in section 38(8) of I.R.O. And reinstate the petitioners in service subject to the final decision of the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore forthwith.