GENERAL MANAGER, DAILY Versus MUSAWAAT', LAHORE MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM

This judgment shall dispose 'of twenty‑one Revision Petitions bearing No. LHR‑1/93‑Punjab to No. LHR‑21/93‑Punjab filed by General Manager, Daily `Musawaat', 8‑Davis Road, Lahore.

2. The respondents who are twenty‑one in number were employees of the petitioner. They were dismissed, after domestic inquiry, for miconduct on the charge of wilful absence from duty. They filed separate grievance petitions before the Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore assailing their dismissal on the grounds that it was malicious and had been made without charge‑sheet and inquiry.

3. The respondents alongwith the grievance petitions also filed applications under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 read with section 151, C.P.C. for an ad interim injuction suspending the operation of the dismissal orders. This application was opposed by the petitioner controverting the pleas raised by the respondents. His contention was that the respondents were dismissed after proper charge‑sheet, notice, and inquiry. The learned Labour Court vide its order dated 29‑11‑1992 accepted the applications of the respondents and suspending the operation of the dismissal orders directed the petitioner to put them back on duty. It was observed that the respondents had succeeded in showing prima facie that their dismissal was without show‑cause notice and inquiry. Hence these revision petitions.

4. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the orders of‑ dismissal passed against the respondents on 1‑7‑1992 were implemented on the same date and the impugned order of the learned Labour Court dated 29‑11‑1992, passed in their grievance petitions which were filed on 12‑9‑1992, was tantamount to accepting the grievance petitions without any inquiry into their grievance. It is argued that a person who stood removed from service before filing grievance petition, could not be reinstated in service by issuing temporary injunction. This argument is quite substantial. Learned counsel for the respondents has emphasised that since the respondents were not paid their outstanding dues by the petitioner, the dismissal orders continued to be inchoate. However, he has not been able to cite any rule in support of this plea. Non‑payment of dues, if any, to a dismissed employee does not recoil on the effectiveness of his dismissal. Moreover, the denial of temporary injunction to the respondents will not cause them any irreparable loss. In case they succeed in their, grievance petitions, they will be considered as still in service and entitled to back benefits on showing that they remained jobless during the interregnum between the date of dismissal cited that of reinstatement. In these circumstances, the temporary injunction granted by the learned Labour Court to the respondents is wholly unjustified and unsustainable.

5. For the foregoing reasons, these revision petitions are accepted and the impugned order dated' 9‑11‑1992 is set aside.

6. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents has requested that a direction may be given to the learned Labour Court to decide the grievance petitions of the respondents expeditiously. According to him, the respondents have already concluded their evidence. The request is reasonable. Therefore, the learned Labour Court is directed to finally decide the grievance petitions of the respondents by the middle of May 1993.

7. A copy of this order shall be sent to the learned Labour Court for compliance.

H.B.T./750/Lb.P

Petitions accepted.