Messrs PACKAGES LIMITED vs MUHAMMAD AKBAR and others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had interfered with findings of fact recorded by the Registrar, Trade Unions regarding the status of a respondent as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner argued that the High Court improperly substituted the Registrar's factual findings, which were based on evidence, and that the High Court's subsequent Intra-Court Appeal (ICA) bench failed to grant interim relief, effectively rendering the appeal infructuous due to upcoming union elections. The Supreme Court observed that the Registrar had conducted a thorough inquiry, including recording evidence, and concluded the respondent performed managerial duties, thus excluding him from the definition of a workman. The Supreme Court held that the High Court should have granted interim relief pending the ICA to prevent the matter from becoming infructuous. Consequently, the Supreme Court suspended the High Court's order pending the final decision of the petition, emphasizing the necessity of preserving the subject matter of litigation through appropriate interim orders.
- Can a High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction substitute findings of fact recorded by a quasi-judicial authority like the Registrar of Trade Unions?
- Is it appropriate for an Intra-Court Appeal bench to deny interim relief if doing so renders the main appeal infructuous?
- Does a junior executive performing managerial duties fall within the definition of a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Section 2(xxviii)(b), Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969
- Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan 1973
ORDER
' Civil Miscellaneous Application No,637-L of 2002.---Learned counsel appearing for petitioner inter alia contended that learned Lahore High Court, Lahore vide judgment dated 16th May, 2002 substituted the findings of fact recorded by the Registrar, Trade Unions, Lahore District vide order dated 26th January, 2002, after having recorded the evidence from both the sides, concluded that the respondents being a junior executive alongwith 25 others does not fall within the definition of worker under subsection (b) of section 2 (xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
According to him the findings of fact have been substituted by the High Court contrary to the principle laid down by this Court in the case of Dilawar Jan v. Gul Rehman and 5 others (PLD 2001 SC 149) wherein parameters have been discussed for interference by the High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan. He further submitted that the petitioner challenged the order of learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16th May, 2002 before an I.C.A. Bench. In that I.C.A. a C.M.A.No,1 of 2002 has been filed for review of the impugned order because as per the schedule announced by the Registrar Trade Unions, election are going to be held on 5th June, 2002 but the learned I.C.A. Bench issued notice of C.M.A. For 24th June, 2002 and in this manner interim relief has been denied to the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed that as respondent No,1 is junior executive and as per the findings of the Registrar, he does not fall within the definition of workman, as such he is not eligible to contest the election. Therefore, under these circumstances, the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16th May, 2002 be suspended.
2. Respondent No,1 appeared in person and maintained that his basic salary is Rs,4,000 whereas total salary drawn by him is Rs,9,000 including all allowances, etc., therefore, he is eligible to contest the election for the President of the Union. He also prayed that some time be given to him to engage a counsel on his behalf.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent No,1 and have gone through the order passed by the Registrar, Trade Unions as well as the order of Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore. Perusal of the latter order indicates that as per the roster of duty of respondent No,1 he is capable to recommend to the Senior Store Officer disciplinary action against any driver or worker, etc. And besides, he also performs all other duties which fall in the category of managerial type of assignment. The Registrar Trade Unions not only heard the parties but has also recorded evidence produced by them and thereafter concluded that respondent No,1 being a junior executive is not workman. Therefore, we are prima facie of the opinion that in such view of the matter learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore may have not substituted the findings of fact. Be that as it may, because presently I.C.A. Is pending, before Lahore High Court and this matter only relates to the suspension of the order of the learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16th May, 2002, therefore, we are of the opinion that once High Court has admitted the I.C.A. It may have also suspended the order of the learned Single Judge, after issuing notice for a short date to the respondent. With due deference to the learned Judges of the learned High Court, we are of the opinion that learned I.C.A. Bench by adjourning the case for a longer time had in fact denied grant of interim relief to the petitioner with the result that ultimately when the I.C.A. Will come up for hearing before the same Bench it will become infructuous because in the meanwhile, election of union will take place.
' Thus in view of above discussion, we suspend the order of learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16th May, 2002 pending decision of this petition subject to all just exception.
' The case is adjourned to date in office.