Find a Lawyer

Petition No. BR‑90;193 of 1982, decided on 21^st April, 1984.

‑‑S. 25‑A‑Workman‑Termination‑Issue of stay order and direc tions‑Terminated person having an arguable case has balance of convenience in his favour and to save him from irreparable injury, Court can issue stay order, but before doing so Court to see whether he is on duty and in case he is on duty, employer can be restrained from implementing order of termination but in case he is out of duty, order of suspension or termination would amount to a direction to put him to duty which should not be passed without final decision of case.

1980 P L C 906 and 1980 P L C 752 ref.

Raja Abdul Rashid for Petitioner.

Muhammad Ikram for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 19th April, 1982.

This revision is directed against the order, dated 8th March, 1982 passed by the Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur whereby he suspended the order of termination of service of the respondent.

2. The service was terminated on the alleged ground of retrenchment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Labour Court has no jurisdiction under section 25‑A to suspend the operation of order of termina tion of service. He has argued that grievance petition not being an indus trial dispute Civil Procedure Code is not applicable to it. He has cited 1980 P L C 906 and 1980 P L C 752. In the first mentioned authority it has been observed that before action is taken after service of second show cause notice a petition brought under section 25‑A is premature and the employer cannot be restrained to take disciplinary action. Evidently the authority is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the present case final order of termination has been passed whereas in the case from which the authority arose no final order has been passed. The second mentioned authority is also not helpful, because the observation made are that the National Industrial Relations Commission in the circumstances of the case could not pass interim order without finding the existence of prima facie of unfair labour practice and without taking procedural action under regulations 32 (i) and 32 (ii) made under section 22 (f). It is thus apparent where a terminated person has an arguable case, balance of convenience goes in his favour and is likely to suffer from irreparable injury, stay order can be issued. However, this is necessary to see whether the incumbent concerned is on duty or not If he is on duty, the employee can be restrained from implementing the order of termination but in case where he is out of duty the order of suspension or termination would among to a direction to put him to duty which should not be passed without the final decision of the case. In the present case an affidavit of the Genera Manager of the Mills has been placed on the record which is to the effect that right on the date on which the order of termination was passed it was implemented in letters and spirit and the respondent has been relieved of his duties. Since the respondent was not on duty and had been relieved the order of suspension of the termination of service was not just and proper. The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to cite any authority to the effect that in the circumstances discussed above order of suspension of termination of service after it has been implemented can be suspended.

3. As a result of the observation made above I accept the revision and setting aside the impugned order dismiss the stay application of the

respondent.

M. Y. M.

Petition 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.