Find a Lawyer

Appeal No. LHR‑441 of 1983, decided on 25th February, 1984.

--‑‑S. 25‑A‑‑Grievance petition‑Temporary injunction‑Petitioner served with retrenchment notice on grounds of attaining retirement age‑Seeking remedy before Labour Court on plea of difference in date of birth ‑ Labour Court granting temporary injunction restraining employer from retiring him‑Appellate Tribunal treat ing appeal as revision and vacating order of Labour Court‑Held Party seeking temporary injunction should satisfy three conditions (1) prima facie case, (2) balance of convenience in his favour, and (3) likelihood of suffering from irreparable loss‑Case of petitioner (workman), held, though arguable yet remaining two conditions not fulfilled‑Revision‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S. 38 (3‑a).

Nazir Ahmad for Appellants.

Ch. Nazir Hussain for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 19th February, 1984.

The order dated 28th May, 1983 has been challenged in this appeal, whereby the learned Presiding Officer Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan accepted the application for temporary injunction.

2. Notice of retrenchment was issued to the respondent considering his date of birth as 12th March, 1923. The respondent challenged the notice before the learned lower Court contending that his date of birth was 12^th March, 1924. Three conditions should be satisfied by a party seeking a temporary injunction. One is prima facie case, the second is that balance of convenience should go in his favour and the third A is that he is likely to suffer from irreparable loss. It may be said that the respondent has an arguable case but the other two conditions do not stand satisfied, If stay order is refused, the inconvenience caused to the appellant would be greater than the one that may be faced by the respondent. Admin1strative functions of the appellants shall remain in abeyance. Many employees who may be waiting for promotion will suffer by the issuance of stay order. whereas by its refusal only one man, the respon dent, will feel the inconvenience. So far as irreparable loss is concer ned, if stay order is refused and the respondent ultimately remains successful, he would get back benefits without working, whereas if he fails, the appellants will suffer from a loss which cannot be compensated. The respondent in those circumstances will remain in service without any right.

3. As has been argued the respondent's retirement is due in the next month even according to his own case. He has no case to ask for an injunction.

4. The appeal is heated as a revision and accepting the same the impugned order of the learned lower Court is vacated.

A. E. Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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