Find a Lawyer

Petition No. LHR‑130 of 1.983, decided on 12th March, 1984.

--- Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3‑a)‑Ad interim injunction‑Grievance petition against notice for termination of service in order to create vacancy for someone in pursuance to Labour Court/Appellate Tribunal decision‑Application for ad interim stay order rejected by Labour Court‑Petitioner not likely to suffer from any irreparable loss because in case of his ultimate success he could claim back benefits‑Order of Labour Court, in circumstances, upheld by Appellate Tribunal in revision.

Khalid Farooq for Petitioner.

Asghar Mahmood for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 3rd March, 1984.

The revision titled above challenges the correctness of the order, dated 10th May, 1983 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore dismissing the petition of the petitioner for ad interim injunction.

2. The petitioner was a junior clerk. He was posted as junior clerk traffic. On account of the decision contained in 1982 P L C 712 of this tribunal to create vacancies for promoting the existing employees, notice of termination is alleged to have been issued to the petitioner. Nothing should be said at this stage as the learned lower Court has to finally decide the points of facts involved in the case but in view of the circumstances of the case this point is to be seen if the petitioner is likely to suffer from any irreparable loss by the refusal of the stay order prayed for. If he ultimately succeeds, he can claim back benefits for the period he on account of the refusal of the stay order remains out of service, but the employee who is to be benefited by the vacancy caused by the termination of the petitioner' may not be able to claim back benefits. So, the learned lower Court rightly refused the stay order prayed for.

3. As a result, the revision having no force is dismissed.

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.