THE PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIONS STAFF UNION vs NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION, ISLAMABAD and 3 others
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against an interim order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, which had stayed proceedings pending before the National Industrial Relations Commission regarding objections to a referendum for electing a Collective Bargaining Agent. The core legal question concerned the propriety of the High Court staying proceedings that another High Court had previously directed to be expedited and decided. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the learned Single Judge was not justified in issuing an interlocutory stay order that ran counter to the earlier directive requiring the National Industrial Relations Commission to dispose of the pending objections. Consequently, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, set aside the suspension order, and allowed the parties to agitate their factual and legal pleas before the Commission.
- Whether a High Court is justified in staying proceedings before the National Industrial Relations Commission when another constitutional forum has already directed the expeditious disposal of those very proceedings?
- Can an interlocutory stay order be sustained if it runs counter to a prior judicial direction regarding the same pending matter?
1. ' AJMAL MIAN, C.J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 9-6-1998 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No,11130 of 1998 filed by respondent No,3 challenging the proceedings pending before respondent No,1 . The learned Judge in Chamber while admitting the above petition has also stayed the proceedings before respondent No, 1 . The petitioner has filed the present petition for leave to appeal and when the matter was placed in Chamber the notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents. In response to the above notice Mr. M. Asghar Malik, learned counsel for respondent No, 3, is present.
2. ' The brief facts are that a referendum for electing the Collective Bargaining Agent was held on 14- 4-1998 but the result was declared on 21-4-1998. It appears that the petitioner and respondent No,3 participated in the above referendum. The result indicated that respondent No,3 has won the referendum by obtaining 22230 votes as against the present petitioner who obtained 19483 votes.
3. However, it may be stated that the petitioner had filed objections on 21-4-1998 before the National Industrial Relations Commission alleging therein that the Returning Officer has committed some illegalities and irregularities. The above objections were pending when the petitioner approached the High Court of Baluchistan, Quetta through Constitutional Petition No,122 of 1998 challenging the above referendum. The above petition was disposed of on 20-5-1998 in the following terms: "In view of the fact that objection petition is 'already pending before the National Industrial Relations Commission, we accept the request as made by Mr. Shakeel Ahmed, Advocate and dispose of the petition in term.; that on next date of hearing, the National Industrial Relations Commission shall try to dispose of the objections filed by petitioners and if thereafter need be petitioners will be free to avail such remedy provided under the law, subject to all just exceptions."
4. ' It seems that in terms of the above ()icier of the High Court respondent No,1 has not yet decided the above objections to the referendum filed by the petitioner. Respondent No,3 filed above fresh Constitutional petition in which they, obtained stay of the proceedings pending before the National Industrial Relations Commission. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
5. ' We have heard Mian Bashir Zafar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Asghar Malik, learned counsel for respondent No,3.
6. In our view, the learned Judge in Chamber was not justified in staying the proceedings through interlocutory order dated 9-6-1998 passed in above Writ Petition No, 11130 of 1998 as it runs counter to above order dated 25-5-1998 which was passed in the earlier Constitutional petition namely C.P.
7. No, 122 of 1998 and whereby respondent No,1 was directed to dispose of the objections. We, therefore, convert the above petition into appeal and set aside the above suspension order.
8. However, it will be open to both the parties to agitate whatever factual and legal pleas available to them before respondent No,1 .