' Propriety/soundness of an order dated 10-12-1997, rendered by the learned Labour Court No.2, Lahore has been called in question by employees of the Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited, by way of the present revision petition, filed under section 38(3)(a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, their prayer being that the aforesaid order be set aside and they be afforded an interim relief by way of suspension of their termination orders, so that they resume work and get their wages, without break.
2. The petitioners had filed a petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, assailing the orders of termination of their services, and they had succeeded in getting ad interim injunction issued in their favour on 31-10-1997, which order was, however, vacated subsequently on 10-12-1997, by the learned Labour Court. The main petition was adjourned to a future date for recording the evidence proposed to be produced by the petitioners. Learned counsel representing the petitioners rely on favourable orders passed in identical matters, by the Humble Lahore High Court, as also the august Apex Court of the country. According to them a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court had issued even a show-cause notice to the Chief Engineer (Projects) for his failure/defiance to implement the status quo orders, having earlier been issued by the learned Labour Court. The lower Court itself had also been moved for filing a complaint against the Corporation for having committed an offence under section 188, P.P.C.
3. Similarly situated persons in identical circumstances are said to have obtained 'suspension orders by approaching the Hon'ble High Court and such orders are still subsisting, according to the petitioners. It is maintained that the manner in which the High Court orders have been ignored or disregarded discloses the extent of extraneous pressure having been exerted by the Corporation people, who were keen that status quo orders or stay orders must not hold the field. No formal charge is assumed or relinquished by these workmen and it must not be assumed that there has occurred a break in their service span, it is so contended by their learned counsel.
4. Opposing counsel (for the Corporation) has, however, laid before this Court an information, which, according to him, knocks the case of the petitioners out of its bottom. 93.04% work of the Project, where the petitioners were working, has since been completed and services of the petitioners are no longer required. The project was undertaken with a huge amount of loan obtained from the World Bank and the project cannot possibly be converted into another one, or continued, and services of the petitioners' retained, without the financial help, which earlier was forthcoming from the World Organization. 622 such workmen were, therefore, asked to stage exit or their services were dispensed with on 27-9-1997, and out of them 106 workmen approached the Labour Court, and they also filed a writ petition in the High Court, which petition was disposed of on 22-10-1997. By placing before the Labour Court copy of an order pertaining to another case, the petitioners, however, maneuvered to obtain a stay order from the Labour Court on 31-10-1997. The maximum relief, according to the learned counsel, which these people could have from the competent Court was a status quo order, and it could not possibly be in the nature of status quo ante. For vacation of the order in question, the Corporation made a move to the learned lower Court. The petitioners, however, filed Writ Petition No. 27215 of 1997. It is submitted that if the leave granting orders have been rendered by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan, in certain cases, such orders cannot be taken as permanently holding the field and cannot be taken into consideration by the Labour Court for continuance of status quo. The Supreme Court had suspended the orders, passed by the High Court, against dispensation of services of the employees of the U.B.L. and H.B.L. It is further urged by the learned counsel that granting the entire relief at an interim stage to an aggrieved person has never been approved by the Superior Judiciary.
5. The august Supreme Court of Pakistan, in the case reported as 1997 SCM R 1508 = 1997 PLC (C.S.)
971, has pronounced that non-interference with the interim orders passed by a Court of competent jurisdiction is a rule and interference is an exception, and an interlocutory order will sparingly be disturbed and only if it has been passed in an arbitrary or capricious manner or against well- settled principles of law. Discretion by the highest Court of the country will also be exercised in very rare cases, but justly, fairly and in consonance with the basis norms of justice. Object of making an interlocutory order or a status quo order is to maintain the situation obtaining on the date when the aggrieved party had approached the Court and not to create a new situation and must not amount to rendering a decision that tantamounts to granting the main relief, without trial or hearing of the case. It was held in the aforesaid case that the termination orders, of the persons concerned, had been passed long ago, and they had handed over the charge of their offices, and an act of suspension of such orders would not be warranted by law, justice and equity. Before disposal of the main case terminated employees could not be re-inducted into service and interlocutory orders, aiming at creation of such situation, were held not be sustainable in law.
6. It is not disputed by the petitioners that they are no longer in service. They may be very poor people and may have been struck very hard. While I have sympathy with them, I cannot unfortunately come to their rescue, and set aside the impugned order of the Labor Court, particularly in exercise of provisional jurisdiction of this Court, scope of which is undeniably quite limited. I would, however, issue an express direction to the learned lower Court for disposal of the grievance petition, at the earliest, and by 23-7-1998, at the latest. Adjournments of shortest possible duration shall be given and all unnecessary adjournments shall be avoided. The revision petition is dismissed with no order as to costs, and the parties are directed to appear in the Court below for further proceedings on 24-3-1998.