1. ' The supra-titled appeal has been filed against an order passed on June 12, 1998 by the Labour Court, Mirpur.
2. ' The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly stated are that the respondents filed a petition under sections 18, 25 and 39 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1974, before the trial. Court on April 22, 1998 whereby they challenged their orders of suspension and inquiry relating to the alleged misconduct on their part. They also applied for an interim injunction which was allowed to them subject to objections from the present appellants, by the trial Court.
3. ' On April 24, 1998, an application was moved on behalf of the present appellants for setting aside the interim relief granted on April 22, 1998 to the respondents. The learned trial Court vide order under appeal maintained the interim relief order, dated April 22, 1998. Hence the present appeal.
4. ' Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Mughal, learned counsel for the appellants argued that during the course of management-union meeting on March 7, 1998, Najam-ul-Hassan, contesting respondent No,1 alongwith other respondents without any legal justification used afiusive language against the Acting Senior Budget and Accounts Officer, Mangla. This meeting at the relevant time was chaired by the Chief Engineer, Mangla. The respondents were, thus, guilty of misconduct under the Pakistan WAPDA (E&D) Rules, 1978. The competent Authority, in these circumstances, had no option but to suspend them as they were responsible for this unfortunate incident and proceed against them in accordance with the provisions contained in the WAPDA (E&D) Rules, 1978. The respondents were issued show-cause notices and they were allowed sufficient time as laid down in the said Rules to furnish their explanations. In order to obstruct the process of law, they filed an application before the Labour Court, Mirpur and obtained the impugned interim injunction. The appellants moved an application before the trial Court for the vacation of the interim injunction on the grounds:-- (1)That the respondents were guilty of the professional misconduct. The competent Authority, therefore, was within its jurisdictional competence to proceed against them under the WAPDA E&D Rules, 1978; and (2)That the services of the WAPDA Employees is held to be the service of Pakistan and employees of WAPDA are considered as civil servants for the purpose of seeking remedy before the Service Tribunal. Therefore, the respondents have wrongly invoked the jurisdiction of the Labour Court.
5. ' On the other hand, it was argued by Khawaja Shahad Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents are active members of the Labour Union. Prior to the impugned order of suspension of respondents and show-cause notices issued to them, they were threatened to dire consequences including transfer, suspension and even termination from the service. On March 7, 1998, a meeting was convened. In that meeting without any fault on the part of his clients, it was falsely attributed to them that they used abusive language against one Abdur Razzaq, Acting Senior Budget and Accounts Officer. According to them, the act of the management amounted to unfair labour practice. Order of suspension, in fact, was issued in furtherance to the threats which in past were given to his clients. According to the learned counsel, the appellants have also availed the jurisdiction of the Labour Court, Mirpur against his clients. Therefore, the appellants are legally estopped to challenge the jurisdictional competence of the said Court.
6. ' I have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case.
7. Unfortunately, the Labour Court has failed to determine following two important points out of the various other points raised on behalf of the management:--
(1) That the matter at issue relates to the terms and conditions of the service of the respondents, as such, they can seek the redress of their grievance by invoking appellate jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal through an appeal; and
(2) That the respondents are not the workmen nor the order of suspension accompanied by show- cause notices issued by the management, amounts to unfair labour practice, as such, the Labour Court has got no jurisdiction.
8. ' The omission on the part of the Court to decide these two fundamental points, in my view, is not justified. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court should have express his judicial verdict on these two vital points. Had the Labour Court resolved these points, it would have finally adjudicated the matter at issue. There is no bar for this Court to pass an appropriate order but following precedent of the Apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir in cases titled "Riaz Ahmad v.
9. Amin Baig and others" PLD 1978 SC 161, "Muhammad Hussain Khan v. Said Muhammad Khan and 11 others" PLD 1988 SC (AJ&K) 184 and Mst. Nishadah Begum and 3 others v. Muhammad Ayub Khan PLD 1988 SC (AJ&K) 203. It is felt expedient to have first the view of the Labour Court on these points.
10. For the sake of reference the view expressed in case titled Riaz Ahmad v. Amin Baig and others" PLD 1978 SC (AJ&K) 161 by the Apex Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir which was subsequently followed, is reproduced:-- "It is a well-settled law that judgment should conform with the provisions of the law i,e,, it should contain concise statement of the case, the points for determination which have been raised in the case, the decision thereon and reasons for such decision. The impugned judgment does not show that the learned Judges applied their mind to all the points raised in the grounds of the writ petition. They omitted to decide two important points. This disregard to the provisions of the law and inadvertent omission has not only wasted their valuable time but has caused unnecessary expense and trouble to the litigant public as well as encouraged further litigation.
11. ' We should have decided the case ourselves but it would be proper to have the view of the High Court on these two points before giving our own decision. We are therefore, constrained to remand the case for decision of the High Court on remaining two points. As no notice was issued to the respondents for disposal of this case, we make no order as to costs." (lines are mine.)
12. In view of the above, the case is remanded to the Labour Court, Mirpur who shall decide these vital points within next 15 days from the receipt of this file. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 18-9-1998.