Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision Petition No. MN‑24 of 1983, decided on 27th February, 1984.
‑‑ S. 38 (3‑a)‑Revision‑Ad interim stay order till next date of bearing issued by Labour Court‑Cannot be challenged in revision- Discontinuance thereof to be requested to Labour Court.
Assadullah Siddiqui for Petitioners.
Respondent in person.
Date of hearing : 22nd February, 1984.
The orders, dated 21st December, 1982 and 23rd January, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan have been challenged in this revision.
2. The facts of the case, according to the petitioners, are that the respondent was retired with effect from 31st August, 1981 on completing the age of superannuation of 60 years and was re‑employed on his applica tion for one year on contract basis on 26th December, 1981. He then brought grievance petition challenging his retirement and the learned lower Court issued ad interim, stay order on 21st December, 1982 till 5th January, 1983. On the said date the learned Presiding Officer was on leave and the case was adjourned to 23rd January, 1983. As the learned Presiding Officer was not available on 5th January, 1983 ad interim stay issued till that date was not extended. The petitioners, on account of the termina tion of the stay order, retired the respondent. Date of relieving the respondent, however, is not given.
3. It has been argued that since on contract basis the respondent had been re‑employed and the said period too had expired, the learned lower Court was not justified to issue ad interim stay order. Since stay order granted on 21st December, 1982 was not final but till next date, it cannot be challenged in revision. Instead of coming to this Court, the learned Presiding Officer should have been requested to discontinue it and no to extend it further. The ground that the counsel was busy elsewhere on 23rd January, 1982 and thus could not apprise of the real facts to the Court is not tenable. Since the order, dated 23rd January, 1983 too is not final the petitioner instead of coming to this Court should have in answer to the notice issued to it appeared before the learned lower Court and requested the Court to discontinue the stay.
4. So far as contempt proceedings are concerned, the petitioners may argue before the Court that since stay order had ended on 5th January, 1983, no question of its continuance on 23rd January, 1983 and after‑wards could arise. Since no fresh order as yet has been passed, it cannot be said that any illegality has been committed.
5. As a result, the revision is dismissed.
A. E.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer