Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MUHAMMAD ARSHAD VS Respondent: MILLAT TRACTORS LIMITED, SHEIKHUPURA ROAD
1993 P L C 300
1993 P L C 300
[Lahore High Court]
Before Mian Saeed‑ur‑Rehman Farrukh, J
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD and 5 others
versus
MILLAT TRACTORS LIMITED, SHEIKHUPURA ROAD through Managing Director and 2 others
Writ Petition No. 311 of 1991, heard on 19th October, 1992.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss. 8‑A & 15‑‑ Constitutional petition, maintainability of‑‑‑Petition filed by employees alongwith stay application before National Industrial Relations Commission against employers levelling allegations of violation of Ss. 8‑A & 15 of Ordinance, 1969 against them, was finally dismissed by Commission‑‑ Employees filing Constitutional petition regarding stay matter only, which was admitted to regular hearing after dismissal of main petition by Commission‑‑‑ Employees had not brought factum of such earlier dismissal of petition to notice of High Court‑‑‑Fact of dismissal of main case having been admitted by employees, subsequent Constitutional petition filed by employees regarding stay matter had become infructuous, in circumstances.
Ch. M. Khalid Farooq for Petitioners.
Saleem Sehgal for Respondent No. 1
Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Date of hearing: 19th October, 1992.
JUDGMENT
The dispute relates to terms and conditions of service of the petitioners, who, according to the respondent, were employed on daily wages basis. There were two writ petitions, i.e. W.Ps. Nos. 7677 and 7678 of 1989, in which, ultimately, compromise took place between the parties on 25‑2‑1990, to the effect that as and when permanent vacancies occurred, the daily wages workers would be accommodated and absorbed. This compromise, according to the learned counsel for respondent No. 1, was being faithfully adhered to, yet a petition bearing No. 4‑A(442)/90‑L was filed by the petitioners alongwith a stay application before the National Industrial Relations Commission, levelling allegations of violation of sections 8‑A and 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, on 5‑4‑1990. On 8‑4‑1990 written statement was filed by respondent No. 1 and on 17‑4‑1990 the matter was placed before the learned Member, NIRC, who admitted the petition to regular hearing and passed a restraint order.
2. Respondent No. 1 filed an appeal before the Full Bench of the Commission. The then Chairman (Mr. Muhammad Afzal Sindhu was not available. The matter was heard by two Members of the NIRC on 10‑7‑1990 and the case was remanded to the learned Member. The learned Single Member, on remand, vide order dated 17‑1‑1991, not only dismissed the stay, application but also the main case.
3. The present writ petition, which is regarding stay matter only, was filed on 15‑1‑1991 and was admitted to regular hearing on 10‑2‑1991. The petitioners should have brought the factum of dismissal of their main case to the notice of this Court. However, for reasons best known to them, they kept mum, with the result that on question of law, urged on their behalf, as mentioned above, the writ petition was admitted to regular hearing.
4. The above facts have been admitted as correct today by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has conceded today that the writ petition, in the circumstances, has become infructuous. In the circumstances, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
H.B.T,/M‑666/L Petition dismissed.