' The revision petition is directed against the order, dated 4-11-1999 of the learned Labour Court, Bahawalpur, suspending operation of the order, dated 29-10-1999 of the Zonal Chief, United Bank Limited Rahim Yar Khan, dismissing from service, Muhammad Rizwan Inamullah Qadri.
2. Inamullah claiming to be General Secretary of the Labour Union (C.B.A.) had approached the learned Labour Court, by filing a petition under sections 22-A(12), 35(5)(d) and sections 15 and 47, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969; and with the main petition he had also submitted an application for issuance of ad interim injunction. The learned Labour Court was of the opinion that on the strength of the submissions made by the employee, and the affidavit filed by him, in support thereof, he had been able to make out an arguable case, prima facie, and implementation of the impugned dismissal order, dated 29-10-1999 was, therefore, liable to be suspended. Grievance petition was adjourned on 4-11-1999 to 26-11-1999.
3. The learned counsel representing the respondent-employee vociferously contends that the Authorities of the Bank had with ulterior considerations and mala fide motives misled the employee by persuading him to withdraw all the cases pending in different Courts, undertaking, at the same time, that the charges against him would be withdrawn and he would have smooth-sailing in his career in future. Actually, however, according to the learned Bank counsel, an assurance had been held out to the employee that he would be enabled to fully participate in the inquiry proceedings and as desired by him a new enquiry would be initiated as regards the allegations lodged against him. The learned counsel representing Inamullah has not been able to place before the Court any script or written commitment made by the Bank people, along the lines averred by him, and the Court cannot possibly lend credence to the oral assertion made by the employee, especially as the misconduct attributed to him extends over a long period of about three years, and dimensions of the same area of grass character or monsterous nature, amount running into lacs having been misappropriated by the person or the Bank having suffered a loss of lacs of rupees at his hands.
4. He,. However, maintains that his activities covered the compass of his trade unionism, and under section 47, especially, he could not be proceeded against, except with the permission of the Labour Court or the N.I.R.C. He had recourse to all these forums, and his cases were pending before the N.I.R.C. And the Hon'ble High Court, as well,, All these averments he will be able to establish in due course, by leading evidence only, and not otherwise.
4. Learned counsel for the United Bank has an odd allegation to make. He says that the petition before the Labour Court, at Bahawalpur, was filed on 3-11-1999 and the date of appearance before the learned Judge was given as 4-11-1999. He has drawn attention of the Court to an application under section 151, C.P.C., submitted in the Court on 3-11-1999 (clearly). It is alleged that the date of presentation was 3-11-1999 and it was subsequently altered as 23-10-1999 by interpolation or manipulation. I, however, find that it may be the other way round, although some official had committed the folly by changing, date 23-10-1999 to 3-11-1999, in the stamp affixed on the petition, when it was received. The Judge was on long leave, so that the Stenographer and the Reader handled the arrangement on interim scale on 23-10-1999 and 27-10-1999, and the learned Judge himself attended to the matter and the application for ad interim injunction on 4-11-1999. Initially the employee was agitating against his apprehended or imperilled ouster from service, and he claims to have filed the petition actually on 23-10-1999. Subsequently, in the course of the proceedings, he submitted another application under section 151, C.P.C., as already said, for suspension of the order of his dismissal from service, having been passed by the Authorities, in the midst of the proceedings, on 29-10-1999, the order having not been communicated to him, in actual practice, it was so maintained by the petitioner.
5. The fact remains that the employee stands dismissed from service w,e,f, 29-10-1999. He had not achieved success in the other forums, as the N.I.R.C. And the High Court. It seems that by virtue of his activities he had come to be regarded as a thoroughly undesirable character, not deserving retention in service. I will not dilate upon all aspects of the matter, as it may prejudice the case of either party. The employee will be at liberty to establish his assertions by leading evidence in the Labour Court, and if he succeeds there and his petition is accepted, he may even earn or realise his past emoluments and other dues too, and thus, he will not in any way suffer irreparably or irretrievably. The impugned order, dated 4-11-1999, it appears, calls for interference by this Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, especially as no injunction in the nature of status quo ante can be granted. I would allow the revision petition and set aside the learned lower Court's order, dated 4-11-1999, although with no order as to costs. The file of the Court below shall immediately be sent back alongwith a copy of this decision, so as to be presented for further proceedings there on 23- 12-1999.