' This appeal under section 22-D of I.R.O. Is directed against the order of the learned Single Member, Lahore Bench, dated 16-5-2000 whereby the interim stay order granted on 25-1-2000 has been confirmed.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are that the services of the respondents who were employed in the Seed Processing Plant of Punjab Seed Corporation, Khanewal in different capacities were terminated by the appellants on 24-12-1999. The respondents challenged their termination through a petition filed under section 22-A(8)(g) read with section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969 alleging therein that their services were terminated due to the trade union activities and "at that time referendum proceedings were pending before the RTU Multan and the petitioners were campaigning for their union. "Alongwith the main petition, the respondents also filed an application under Regulation 32(2) of N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 praying that pending disposal of the main petition, operation of the impugned order of their termination dated 24-12-1999 may be suspended.
3. The learned Single Member by his order, dated 25-1-2000 issued notice to the appellants calling for their comments on 22-2-2000 and further directed that in the meantime "the impugned orders dated 24-12-1999 in respect of the petitioners are held in abeyance".
4. The appellants contested the respondents' petition by filing a written statement in which they raised numerous preliminary objections and also controverted the respondents' allegations on factual plane. It was pointed out by the appellants in their written statement that Mazdoor Ittehad Union of which respondent No,1 was Vice-president and other respondents were the members had given an undertaking in writing to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Multan that it did not want to participate in the referendum and that the President and other office-bearers of the said union had no objection if C.B.A. Certificate was given to New Workers Union, Khanewal and accordingly, the Registrar of Trade Unions, Multan Region issued the C.B.A. Certificate in favour of the New Workers Union on 12-1-2000. It was also submitted by the appellant in their written statement that the respondents had filed a Civil Suit on 24-12-1999 and obtained a temporary injunction in that suit which was pending before the Civil Court, Khanewal when they approached this Commission but they did not disclose this fact in their petition filed before the learned Single Member. It was also stated in the written statement that after obtaining the interim stay order from the learned Single Member, the respondents withdrew their suit from Civil Court on 2-2-2000.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the impugned order of the learned Member dated 16-5-2000 and other relevant documents. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the services of the respondents having been terminated on 24- 12-1999, the act of unfair labour practices, if any, stood completed before the respondents approached this Commission through petition filed under section 22-A(8)(g) read with 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 and as such, interim relief sought by them could not be granted under Regulation 32(2) which is attracted only to prevent an unfair labour practice likely to occur and not where it has already been committed. Learned counsel has further contended that the interim stay order issued by the learned Member holding termination order in abeyance which had already taken effect amounted to restoring status quo ante, which is not permissible in law. Learned counsel has also vehemently, contended that the respondents approached this Commission with unclean hands insofar as they did not disclose in their petition that they had already filed a civil suit in which a temporary injunction had also been issued in their favour. Learned counsel for the appellants has invited our attention to the application, dated 12-1-2000, filed by the President and other office- bearers of Mazdoor Ittehad Union, before the Registrar of Trade Unions, Multan stating therein that they did not want to contest the referendum and they had no objection if the New Workers Union, was granted C.B.A. Certificate. It was argued by the learned counsel that the respondents also did not disclose this fact in their petition and they rather alleged therein that their services were terminated because they were campaigning for their Mazdoor Ittehad Union which was contesting the referendum. This assertion of the respondents, according to the learned counsel, was a blatant lie. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has not been able to controvert any of the aforementioned factual assertions made by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the non-disclsoure of the factum of pendency of the Civil Suit and filing of the application by the office-bearers of Mazdoor Ittehad Union before Registrar of Trade Unions, Multan saying that they did not want to contest the referendum. In the circumstances, learned counsel for the appellant is right in contending that C the respondents did not approach this Commission with clean hands.
They were, therefore, not entitled to the grant of interim relief. Law is fairly well settled that the interim relief as was sought by the respondents being equitable and discretionary, is not to be granted to a person who comes to the Court with unclean hands and acts in an unfair and unequitable manner. We find that the learned Member while passing the impugned order did not advert to these vital aspects of the matter nor did he apply his mind to the pleadings of the parties and other material placed on record. The learned Member also does not appear to have considered whether there existed my prima facie case of unfair labour practices on the part of the appellants. There is not even a passing reference in the impugned order to this jurisdictional fact.
Needless to emphasise that existence of unfair labour practice is a condition precedent for invoking jurisdiction of this Commission. The learned Member; is also not shown to have examined the question of interim relief with reference to the provisions of Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C.
(Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973. It may pertinently be observed that the provision in question is attracted only when there is some apprehension that unfair labour practice is likely to occur to prevent, which some interim measure is called for. W. Have seen the application filed by the respondents under Regulations 32(2) of the Regulations, 1973. Apprehension/likelihood of any unfair labour practice occurring in future is not even mentioned in this application. No case was, therefore, made out for the grant of interim relief under Regulations, 32(2), which in terms applies to a case of unfair labour practice likely to occur and not where it has already occurred. (Refer 1999 PLC 22).
6. We also find considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel that interim order could not be issued to restore status quo ante, which in fact amounts to granting the whole relief sought in the main petition, which is not permissible under law (Ref. 1995 SCMR 06 and 1998 SCM R 68).
7. Thus viewed from whatever angle, the impugned order of the learned Single Member cannot be sustained as it has been passed without keeping in view the relevant considerations and the legal/statutory requirements governing tie grant of interim relief. We, therefore, allow this appeal, and recall/set aside the impugned order of the learned Member dated 16-5-2000 with the direction that learned Member seized of the case, shall dispose of the petition pending before him within a period of two months from today. Both parties are directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments in the case.