' As common question of law and fact is involved in Writ Petition No,152 of 2002, Writ Petition No,153 of 2003, Writ Petition No,154 of 2003, Writ petition No,155 of 2003 and Writ Petition No,156 of 2003, I propose to dispose of all these by a common order.
2. The respondents in all these petitions, filed petitions before N.I.R.C. Under section 22-A(8)(g) and section 22-B(3) of I.R.O., 1969 alleging unfair labour practice that they were being victimized and discriminated upon being members of a rival union and not supporters and members of C.B.A.
Union L.D.A. The respondents are the employees of L.D.A. In various cadres and joined it during the period 1988 to 1993. They were initially employed as work charge/daily wages employees. They prayed for regularization of their services on the basis of formula approved by the then Chairman/Chief Minister in which the length of service for regularization was fixed as follows:--
(i) Work charge employees, three years.
(ii) Daily wages employees, five years.
' The grievance of the respondents was that on the basis of the above said formula the then learned Chairman, N.I.R.C. Passed an order on 17-7-1995 directing the petitioner/L.D.A. To regularize the services of 948 employees. The petitioners regularized the services of 700 work charge/daily wage employees but the respondents were discriminated upon and ignored because of their trade union activities. Learned Single Bench of the N.I.R.C. Vide his order dated 31-1-2000 accepted the petitions filed by the respondents declaring them as regular and confirmed employees of petitioner/L.D.A.. Appeals were preferred before the Full Bench of N.I.R.C. By petitioner/L.D.A.. Which were disposed of with certain modification in the order of Single Bench by the learned Full Bench of 19-4-2002 with the following direction:-- "However, we have noticed with concern that the learned Member has not taken into consideration the order of the Full Bench dated 19-6-1999 while concluding the impugned order so we feel no hesitation to amend the impugned order in view of the order of the Full Bench dated 19-6-1999 referred to above, in which the L.D.A. Authorities were empowered to examine the case of each individual strictly in accordance with the approved policy formula laid down in the approved summary. Exh P.C. No one should be discriminated. Any of the work charge/daily wages fulfilled the pre-condition the subject-matter of the above-referred summary approved by the Chief Minister, he should be benefitted accordingly purely on merits without discrimination. The cases of work charge/daily wages employees/petitioners of L.D.A. Be rechecked/scrutinized, the services of the eligible employees be regularized. The petitioners should not be discriminated and victimized in any manner. They should be treated at par with the employees whose services have been regularized if they fulfil the basic approved criteria as discussed supra. The impugned order is amended accordingly. The appeals stand disposed of in view of the above mentioned terms."
' The order dated 19-4-2002 passed by the N.I.R.C. Was neither challenged nor implemented by the petitioners. The respondents filed contempt petition before the N.I.R.C.
3. The petitioners through these Constitutional petitions assail the orders of the N.I.R.C. Dated 31-1- 2000 and 19-4-2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no unfair labour practice as defined by section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969 is involved in the instant cases as such the N.I.R.C. Had no jurisdiction in the matter. It was further submitted that the respondents could only approach the Labour Court under section 25-A of I.R.O. There was no regularization by the then Chief Minister in the summary submitted to him and the same has been misunderstood. Reliance was placed on Lahore Development Authority through D.G. Lahore and another v. Abdul Shafiq and others (PLD 2000 SC 207), WAPDA and others v. Khanimulla and others (2000 SCM R 879) and Lahore Development Authority and others v. Abdul Shafiq and others (1992 PLC 1214).
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that earlier four Writ Petition No,12955 of 1993, No,1399 of 1998, No,25099 of 1998 and No,5163 of 1998, were filed which were disposed of by Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J., as he then was, with a direction to implement the impugned order dated 19-4-2002 passed by the Full Bench of N.I.R.C. In the wake of the judgment dated 7-8-2002 passed on the aforementioned writ petitions, the present Constitutional petitions are not maintainable. He further submitted that the petitioners have not come to this Court with clean hands and they concealed this fact. In order to cover. Up the matter the petitioner has moved C.M.
No,406 of 2002 in Writ Petition No,152 of 2003 only, seeking permission to take additional grounds in the writ petition which are as under:--
14. That the respondents filed grievance petition before N.I.R.C. Which was decided by the learned Single Member of the N.I.R.C. Vide order dated 31-1-2000. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Full Bench of N.I.R.C. Which was disposed of vide judgment dated 19-4- 2002.
15. That the statement in Writ Petition No,12955 of 1993 which was given by the Standing Counsel for L.D.A. Without instruction and authority from the petitioner/appellant.
5. I have gone through the impugned order and perused the record. I tend to agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that at the time of the filing of instant Constitutional petition the order passed on Writ Petition No,12955 of 1993, No,1399 of 1998, No,25099 of 1998 and No,5163 of 1998, by Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J. As he then was, was not disclosed. This was a concealment by the petitioners. The operative part of the order passed on the aforementioned writ petition is as under:-- "It is held that all these petitions have become redundant in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of N.I.R.C. Dated 19-4-2002. The direction contained in the operative part, as reproduced above, do complete justice between the parties. The above directions are only supplemented with the order that: the exercise directed to be undertaken will not be unnecessarily delayed and will, in any case, be completed within three months (as suggested by learned counsel for L.D.A.). The question of payment of salary will follow the result of the inquiry as directed by the judgment of the Full Bench".
The judgment of the learned Full Bench N.I.R.C. Dated 19-4-2002 has been ordered to be implemented within three months. Unless the said order is set aside these Constitutional petitions will not be maintainable. The present Constitutional petitions which have been filed after more than eight months of the passing of the impugned orders by N.I.R.C. Badly suffer from laches and appear to have been filed only to avoid the judgment passed by Karamat C Nazir Bhandari, J. The additional grounds have also been taken against the counsel for the said purpose. The same are afterthought and are rejected. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners related to the merits of the cases which cannot be gone into in the presence of the order dated 7- 8-2002 passed by Karamat Nazir Bhandari, J. Instead of challenging the said order the petitioner chose to file the present Constitutional petitions. These are not maintainable and are dismissed in limine.