' This judgment shall dispose of the instant writ petition as well as Writ Petitions Nos. 3489 and 4028/S of 1996 as a comwon question of law is involved in these petitions.
2. The brief facts giving rise to these writ petitions are that the Member, N.I.R.C. Suspended the transfer orders of the petitioners on the petitions moved by respondent No, 4/respondent No, 2, respectively, through interim orders at pre-admission stage.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the N.I.R.C. Had no jurisdiction to entertain the petitions and suspend the transfer orders as those were passed by the competent Authority and pertained to Government servants. The case of Hotel International, Rawalpindi v. National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad and 6 others (1980 PLC 752) was referred in support of the plea that interim relief could not be granted to the said respondents.
4. That's as may be, it is an established principle of law that while granting even interim relief a Court or Tribunal must decide the question of its jurisdiction as only the orders passed with jurisdiction have binding force. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Province of the Punjab through Secretary, Health Department v. Dr. S. Muhammad Zafar Bukhari (PLD 1997 SC 351) observed as follows:-- "The question is whether indictment for disobedience to a judgment per in curium can be obtained or in other words can a person be found guilty of disobedience of an order which is nullity in the eyes of law. On this question cases cited in Asbury's Laws of England 4th Edition, Volume 9, para. 55, are 'R. v. Hollis 1819, 2 Strak. 536; R. v. Soper 1825, 3 B & C 857'. Wherein it was held that 'a person cannot be found guilty of disobedience to an order of justices if the order was made in a matter in which they had no jurisdiction' " .
5. In the case of Hafiz Khalid Irshad v. Ahmad Khan Wattoo and others (1997 SCM R 1124) the Supreme Court set aside the stay granted by the High Court and remanded the case with the observation that the High Court should first determine the question of its jurisdiction before passing any interim order.
6. In the cases in hand, respondent No,4/respondent No, 2 approached N.I.R.C. Claiming to be low- paid employees, whereas the petitioners have alleged them to be civil servants. It was essential for the N.I.R.C. To consider and decide the question of its jurisdiction while granting interim relief.
7. Without going into details of the factual dispute, the impugned interim orders are set aside as those were passed by the N.I.R.C. Without deciding the question of its jurisdiction. The N.I.R.C. Shall dispose of the petitions/applications for suspension of impugned transfers expeditiously with particular reference to its jurisdiction. All these writ petitions are accordingly accepted with the above observations with no order as to costs.