Respondents Nos. 3 to 146 had been recruited by the Irrigation Department, on ad hoc basis, and the Chief Engineer on 13-2-1996 ordered that their services be terminated with immediate effect.
This is stated to have been done on a move made by the Tube well Employees' Union, Mandi Bahauddin, members of which union claimed that their children had a prior right for such recruitment, and the outsiders had to be ignored, while making fresh appointments. Actually, the Executive Engineer is said to have in hurry recruited respondents Nos. 3 to 146 in contravention of the conditions of the settlement' arrived at between the Employees' Union and the Authorities of the Department, who had earlier conceded to the demands of the union in that behalf.
2. Respondents Nos. 3 to 146 filed a grievance petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in the Punjab Labour Court No. 7, Gujranwala. The Court on 15-2-1996 passed an interim order to the effect that the employees must not be removed from service, except by due process of law. This order caused grievance to the petitioner body, which claims to, be the representative union of the employees, having been registered as C.B.A. This status has been disputed by the respondents before me. According to them, there was neither any settlement in existence, nor was there any rule or practice, which required that the Department must not recruit anyone else, except children and relatives of those already in service. The petitioner union, however, has pleaded that a right guaranteed under a settlement and available under law has been violated, whereas no such right of respondents Nos. 3 to 146, enforceable under any law, settlement or award, has been infringed. It is also alleged that no grievance notice, as required by the statute, was served upon respondents Nos. 1 and 2, by the remaining respondents, and the, grievance petition, therefore, would not be competent. Another important plea taken up by the petitioner before this Court is that the union was a necessary party to the proceedings, and by not impleading it as a party to the proceedings before the lower Court, the petition there had been rendered as one not maintainable.
3. It is to be noted, at this juncture, that the petitioner union has, without becoming a party to the petition pending in the Court below, invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Appellate Tribunal straightaway, which course is neither proper nor permissible under the law. The union of the employees was at liberty to apply to the Labour Court for its impleadment as a party to the proceedings. The body, however, did not care to fulfil the aforesaid formality and preferred to rush to this forum for the requisite relief, which, I am afraid, cannot readily be conceded to them. They may, if so advised, approach the Labour Court, with a request that they be arrayed as co- respondents in the grievance petition. It will be open to them to place before the Court their standpoint; and if it is found to be correct or sound, the Court may opt not to yield to the demand of the grievance petitioners about their retention in service.
4. The learned lower Court does not appear to have committed any material irregularity or illegality, or bypassed any express provision of law, in rendering the impugned order, on entertaining the grievance petition. I would dismiss the revision petition being not proceedable under the law.