SHAHZAD SHAHEEN SHIBLI vs MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through President and 5 others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against an interlocutory order of the Lahore High Court passed in a writ petition, whereby the operation of an order by a Single Bench of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) directing the petitioner's reinstatement in service was suspended, and pre-admission notice was issued. The petitioner argued that although the Supreme Court ordinarily refrains from interfering with interlocutory orders, interference was warranted because the interim order disregarded the law and hindered proceedings before the Full Bench of the NIRC. The Supreme Court declined to determine the merits of the interlocutory order, observing that the writ petition was still at the motion stage and had not yet been formally admitted. The Court disposed of the petition with directions permitting the petitioner to apply before the High Court for modification or vacation of the interim order, further directing that the writ petition be heard within fifteen days from the filing of such an application.
- Will the Supreme Court interfere with an interlocutory stay order passed by the High Court in a writ petition that is still at the motion stage?
- What remedy is available to an aggrieved party when the High Court suspends the operation of an NIRC order via an interim order prior to formal admission of the writ petition?
- Can the Supreme Court direct the expedited hearing of a pending writ petition at the motion stage instead of deciding an appeal against an interlocutory order?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the interlocutory order, dated 24-8-1999 of the Lahore High Court passed in Writ Petition No,15192 of 1999 through which operation of the order, dated 28-7-1999 of a Single Bench of the NIRC directing restoration in service of the petitioner has been suspended and pre-admission notice issued in the writ petition to the respondent i.e, the present petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition urged on the strength of rule laid down in the judgment reported as Habib Bank Limited and others v. Syed Zia-ul-Hassan Kazmi (1998 SCM R 60) that though ordinarily this Court would refrain from interfering in interlocutory orders but if the order has been passed in utter disregard of the law, it should be interfered with.
3. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent that appeal before the Full Bench of NIRC filed against the said order is pending. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that on account of suspension of operation of the orders of the Single Bench of NIRC in the writ petition, the Full Bench of the N.I.R.C. May not be in a position to hear the appeal against the said order which on account of the interim order of the High Court for all purposes is not in the field, therefore, the matter shall be delayed.
4. We are not inclined to enter upon the discussion whether the present case falls within the principle laid down in the aforesaid reported judgment keeping in view that the writ petition in which the said interim order was passed, has not yet been admitted to full hearing as merely pre- admission notice has been issued, therefore, it is a case still in motion before the High Court and should be decided on priority basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that no date has been fixed in the writ petition after 19-10-1999 on which date it was not heard. The petitioner may make an application before the High Court for modification or vacation of the impugned interim order and if such an application is made, the writ petition which is still at motion stage shall be heard within fifteen days from the date of making of such application. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the hearing of the writ petition itself as he has no intention to delay the same.
5. For the foregoing reasons, subject to the above direction, this petition is disposed of.