' The revision petition is directed against the order, dated 18-10-1999 of the learned Labour Court No,3, Lahore, at Ferozewala, accepting the application filed under section 151, C.P.C. By the Inqalabi Workers Union for grant of interim relief.
2. At the outset of his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for establishment, the Newage Cables, has drawn the attention of this Court to the view consistently adopted and expressly expounded by the Judge, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, to the effect that a Labour Court does not have the power to grant ad interim injunction and can deal with and decide the matter in controversy between the parties to the litigation when a case reaches its conclusion and is ripe for decision. In the instant case, however, the learned Court seems to have gone too out of the way, in having disposed of the application, counched in general terms, under section 151, C.P.C., eight months after its submission and accepted it by observing that the workers could not be permitted to be punished for the simple reason that they had failed to make the request (for grant of ad interim injunction) originally on submission of the main petition under section 34 1969), on as back as 3,0-1-1999, further expressing himself almost finally in favour of the workers or members of the Union. In the course of the discussion, in paras. 5 and 76 of the judgment, it has been said that consideration of comparative convenience and irreparable loss lie in favour of the workers, and the establishment would not lose anything or be exposed to any measure of injury or loss, if the workmen are enabled to continue working during pendency of the case.
3. In the petition filed on 30-1-1999, no request for suspension of the impugned order of the establishment had been made, and it was subsequently on 19-2-1999 prayed that the organization be restrained from effecting retrenchment of the employees. The learned lower Court has observed that the Courts exist and function to administer justice and to keep balance, meaning thereby that overall ends of justice have to be preserved and served, without being truly technical. Very purpose of law would be defeated if the workers are turned out of their jobs, it has been so pronounced by the learned Court below, adding that the very object of union formation will be frustrated. The learned counsel representing the concern has relied on 1980 PLC 253 (Karachi) and PLD 1998 Lah.
72. In the reported cases it has been laid down that if a Labour Court awards back benefits to a worker, without there being a prayer in that behalf, the order would be unlawful and inoperative, further a person or personnel must approach the Court of law with clean hands and if it is shown that he had indulged in any kind of conduct that had sullied his hands or had done anything against the established social and moral norms of the society, he would not qualify for grant of discretionary relief in equity.
4. On behalf of the concern it has been shown that on 10-2-1999, layoff of a few workers, had been ordered, that too for the statutory period i,e, 14 days, and the order ceased to have effect after 23- 2-1999. Presently there is no such order in the field and, thus, prayer made for rescinding or suspending any such order would be inapt. 142 workers were retrenched on 2-1-1999, (effective from 4-1-1999). 16 workers were retrenched on 6-1-1999 and 127 workers on 16-1-1999. Out of them, 101 workers approached the establishment and received their dues in the amount of approximately 30 lacs of rupees. 21 workers afterwards approached the Labour Court for similar purpose.
Resultantly 123 workers are no longer aggrieved on any score and do not seek any relief or succor from the Court. The Organization has taken up in service 55 workers. In the field, as already said, there is no lay-off or retrenchment order at present.
5. The Union had served that Establishment with a strike notice and initiated proceedings for its cancellation, as envisaged by sections 27 to 30 of the Act. The factory operations are presently having smooth-sailing, and only a few mischief-mongers or trouble-creators may be active, with the sole objective of serving their unholy ends and directly designs.
6. I am really convinced that the workers enbloc or as a class have no sacred cause and lawful goals to serve; and the learned lower Court has come to their rescue not in a justifiable, judicial and judicious manner. They may however, succeed in establishing their assertions when the matter is proceeded with and is finally adjudicated upon. I would vacate the injunction order and set aside the impugned order, dated 18-10-1999, as the same eminently calls for interference ley this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The revision petition is accepted, although with no order as to costs. The parties shall make appearance in the Court below for further proceedings on 18-1-2000.
Revision .