' Ch. Nabi Ahmad, Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Gujranwala directed maintenance of status quo, by rendering an interim order on 5-11-1999, on entertaining grievance petition, having been filed by Muhammad Arshad Mehmood Cheema, a Bank Officer, against the Authorities of the Habib Bank Ltd. The order was made clearer, by further directing that the officer's ouster from service would not take place, if by then the orders of his dismissal/removal from service had not been rendered and conveyed by the competent Authority. This amounted to issuance of an injunction order against the Bank people, who preferred the present revision petition on 10-11-1999. I distinctly recall that Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema, Advocate kept sitting in this Court, throughout the day, on 10th and again on 11th of November, as he was probably expecting that the Bank Authorities would be having recourse to this Tribunal, agitating against the aforesaid order, dated 5-11-1999 of the learned Labour Court, copy of which had been made available to the employee on 8-11-1999. 9-11-1999 was a gazetted holiday, being the Birth day of Allama Iqbal. The revision petition was filed on 10-11-1999, late in the day, it appears, and it was proposed by the office to be placed before the Court on the following day, i,e, on 11-11-1999.
2. The learned counsel for the parties had consumed ample time, exceeding three hours, in making and concluding their address. I, however, feel that it was all an unnecessary exercise. If the learned counsel for the parties were to make submissions and raise contentions, covering the whole compass, nothing would be left for the Labour Court for consideration and adjudication, although it is the Court of the first instance, which has to deal with rival contentions and take a decision, to begin with. If all the issues in controversy are dealt with and decided by the Labour Tribunal, the parties to the litigation will be deprived of one forum. Law intends and ordains that the matter should primarily, at least initially, be brought under discussion by the Labour Court and afterwards by the Labour Appellate Tribunal; and the procedure, as also propriety and expediency or wisdom of the process requires and dictates that the Court of first instance should proceed with the matter, on enteraining it, and even at the initial stage should render a well-considered order, sane and sound, judicious and balanced, as also legally sustainable and equitably maintainable plane.
3. The dismissal, order of the employee is claimed to have been passed by the competent Authority on 28-10-1999. The grievance petition before the learned Labour Court was filed about a week thereafter on 5-11-1999. According to the Bank people, the employee conducted himself in a clever and escaping, nay, cunning and mischievous manner, and by getting hold of the attendance register, he marked his presence, at a stretch, for all the days that intervened, but he could not be treated to be on duty during this period, as he stood dismissed from service w,e,f, 28- 10-1999. The order had even been conveyed to him, at the two addresses furnished by him, on being Gali Rajputana near Sir Syed High School, Mandi Sumbarrial, District Sialkot, and the other being Village and Post Officer Begowala, Tehsil Daska, District Sialkot (though his village is stated to be Bhonanwala, a few miles away Begowala). A determined effort was made to serve him at his official or bank address even. He, however, conducted himself in entirely evasive way and claims to have not been communicated the order of his ouster from service, although with the grievance petition, dated 5-11-1999, he had himself annexed his dismissal order, dated 28-10-1999, and had also made a mention of the same in the averments embodied in the grievance petition.
4. The learned lower Court will examine this aspect of the matter whether in such a situation the adverse order will be taken to have been communicated to the employee or not, when it had actually been rendered (on as back as 28-10-1999), and the employee must also have not been permitted to perform duty, even for a day, or a short while, after 28-10-1999. The Labour Court will also have to attend to other important questions involved, and different other aspects of the case, as for instance, whether the officer can legitimately claim to be a workman, for having access to a Labour Court, for redressal of his grievance, further whether the learned lower Court, even while having competence in the matter, could grant an injunction in the manner of status quo ante.
Gross character or monsterous nature of the allegations against the official will also have to be kept in mind.
5. I would not advert to this and other questions involved, and would leave the same for the Labour Court to deal with, on application of mind, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, and going through the relevant record of the Bank, if necessary. The case is withdrawn from the Labour Court, Gujranwala, and is entrusted to the learned Labour Court No,1, Lahore where it shall be put up for further proceedings on 16-12-1999. The learned counsel representing the two sides are leading Lahore lawyers, and it will be convenient for them to attend to their job, in right, earnest and with full dedication, before the Labour Court at Lahore, rather than at Gujranwala.
6. I would add that the employee/officer had also filed a contempt petition on 20-11-1999, against Mr. Muhammad Yousaf Bhatti, VicePresident/Zonal Chief, Habib Bank Ltd., Ghulam Qader Arcade, Sialkot Cantt. The prayer being that he be treated as contemner, proceeded against, and punished for not complying with the order, dated 5-11-1999 of theLearned Lower Court Gujranwala. In my considered opinion, the complainant having practically been ousted from service earlier no case for commission of an act of contempt of Court on behalf of the respondent in the petition is made out, and I, therefore, proceed to dismiss the contempt petition, so far as the jurisdiction of this Court is concerned.