Find a Lawyer

Revisions Nos. LHR‑233 and 234/Pb. of 1983, decided on 6th July, 1983.

‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 36‑Procedure and practice‑Grievance petition against dismissal from service‑Petitioner continuing discharging duty on basis of stay order issued by Labo' Court‑Grievance petition disposed of as withdrawn pursuan to compromise of parties effected outside the Court‑Stay order thus coming to an end‑Proceedings before Court resumed because employer contras y to compromise starting acting upon earlier dismissal order‑Plea of employer that compromise was effected by counsel without authority‑Labour Court in circumstances, held, rightly issued fresh stay order restoring the parties to position as it was on date of compromise and withdrawal of petition.

Mahboob Ahmad for Petitioner.

Ch. Ghulam Qadir Cheema for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 3rd July, 1983.

Since the points of facts and law involved in the two revisions captioned above are common, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The allegation for which the respondents were dismissed were that they had stolen trees. They brought grievance petitions for their re‑instatement in which stay order was issued and under the said order, they continued discharging their duties. During the pendency of the petitions a compromise was effected outside the Court and on the state ments of the parties' counsel, the petitions were disposed of as withdrawn and with the said order the stay order already issued came to an end. The proceedings were resumed by the learned lower Court as the petitioner ignoring the order based upon the compromise started acting upon the earlier dismissal orders. The plea of the petitioner is that Mr. Muhammad Yasin, junior of Mr. Javed Altaf had no authority to effect compromise. The respondents made applications for stay which have been granted and the said orders have been callenged in these revisions.

3. This is an admitted fact that before the grievance petitions of the respondents were dismissed as withdrawn, stay orders existed in favour of the respondents and they came to an end due to compromise. If according to the petitioner, compromise was effected without the authority, the parties would revert to the same position at which they were before the compromise. But on one hand the petitioner ignores the compromise and on the other ignores the stay orders previously issued. If the orders passed by the Court on the basis of compromise are ineffective, then how the stay orders would not revive. In these circumstances, the learned lower Court was justified in restorir ‑ the earlier stay order by issuing a new stay order. Learned counsel for the respondents has cited a number of authorities on the point that even in the case where the employee has already been relieved, stay order can be issued by suspending the order of dismissal but the rulings are not directly on this point. However, in the present case no such question arises according to the peculiar circum stances already discussed. Since already stay orders existed, they were to be necessarily restored after the petitioner came forward with the plea that it was not bound by the compromise as Mr. Muhammad Yasin, Advocate, had no authority in that behalf.

4. As a result of what has been said above, I do not find any force in the two revisions and dismiss them.

A. E. Appeal dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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