Find a Lawyer

Petition No. LHR‑83 of 1980, decided on 13th July, 1982.

Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIH of 1969)‑--

‑‑ Ss. 25A 38 (3‑a)‑Temporary injunction ‑ Petitioner making grievance petition against reversion‑Labour Court refusing to grant temporary injunction‑Appellate Tribunal in exercise of revision jurisdiction examining record and coming to conclusion that petitioner had arguable case‑Reversion order, in circumstances, suspended till decision of grievance petition by Labour Court.

Ch. Khalid Farooq for Petitioner.

Muhammad Nawaz for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 4th July, 1982.

This revision is directed against the order dated 2nd February, 1982 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore whereby the application for interim stay was partly accepted.

2. The facts are that the petitioner was senior Ticket Examiner and on account of retrenchment, was reverted to the post of Duty Clerk on 5th December, 1981. On 8th December, 1981 he was further reverted to the post of conductor. Initially he was appointed as conductor and by promo tion had reached the post of S. T. E. He challenged the orders of his reversion in his grievance petition made under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, in which he made an application for temporary injunctions, but the learned trial Judge has suspended the order of reversion of the petitioner to the post of conductor, but he refused to stay the order of revertion dated 5th December, 1981, whereby the petitioner was reverted to the post of Duty Clerk.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the peti tioner was never posted as Ticket Examiner, therefore, he was not reverted to the said post. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the posts of senior Ticket Examiner and Ticket Examiner belong to the same cadre with only this difference that senior Ticket Exami ner is given special allowance of Rs. 50, therefore, the petitioner should have been reverted to the post of Ticket Examiner and neither as Duty Clerk nor as a conductor and that on this ground the impugned order refusing to suspend the order of revertion to the post of Duty Clerk is not sustainable. The persons mentioned at Serial Nos. 20, 27, 30 and 31 of the seniority list, were not reverted, because they were appointed as Ticket Examiners and not senior Ticket Examiners. Since the seniority list is combined and the posts of S. T. E. and T. E. belong to the same cadre, the petitioner has an arguable case, therefore, the order of his reversion dated 5th December, 1981 should also have been suspended by the learned trial judge.

4. As a result of the observations made above, I accept the revision petition and suspend the operation of the order of reversion of the petitioner dated 5th December, 1981 to the post of Duty Clerk, till the decision of the petition given under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The record of the lower Court be sent hack immediately, so that the lower court may proceed with the main case. This order shall not prejudice the decision of the main case.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.