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. LHR‑257 of 1983, decided on 22nd July, 1984.
‑‑ S. 38 (3‑a)‑Revision‑Grievance petition against termination of services pending in Labour Court‑No order yet passed on application for stay order because of Presiding Officer being on vacation leave‑Workman claiming stay order in revision‑Revi sion, in circumstances, held, mis-conceived and instead miscella neous application for issue of stay order till Presiding Officer Labour Court returned from leave should have been made‑Re vision remaining pending for long time and petitioner work man not caring to apply to Labour Court for stay order‑ Revision, in circumstances, held, not maintainable hence dismiss ed.
Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Petitioner.
Rana Faiz Ullah Khan for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 17th July 1984.
This is a revision claiming a stay order in the shape of status quo. The petitioner is a driver. He was terminated on account of alleged vision failure. With spectacles he can see. The main case is pending before the learned lower Court. Since as yet no order has been passed by the learned lower Court rejecting the prayer of maintenance of status quo, the revision is mis-conceived. If the Court was not functioning due to vacation, not a revision but a miscellaneous application for issuing stay till the Court returned from leave should have been made. The revision has remained pending for a very long time but as yet the petitioner has no cared to apply to the learned lower Court for stay order. In these circumstances the revision is not maintainable and is thus dismissed.
A. E.
Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer