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.
Petition No. RI‑243 of 1984, decided on 29th October, 1984.
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service‑ Petitioner a private secretary‑‑Labour Court holding that petitioner's duties were to take dictation and typing hence prima facie was covered by definition of workman‑‑Labour Court granting interim stay order‑‑Plea that interim stay order was illegal because petitioner was not a workman‑‑Duty roster not placed before Labour Court‑‑In absence of any document on point of duties of petitioner interim stay order granted by Labour Court, held, not incorrect and same upheld by Appellate Tribunal in revision.
‑‑‑Ss.25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Grievance petition against termination‑‑Ad interim stay order‑‑No proof that impugned termination order implemented by relieving petitioner before passing interim stay order by Labour Court‑ Stay order, in circumstances, held, not suffering from any legal infirmity and upheld by Appellate Tribunal in revision.
Sh. Maqbool Ahmad for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 27th October, 1984.
The order dated 26‑9‑1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi is said to be illegal. The learned lower Court refused to vacate ad interim stay order holding that the respondent is prima facie covered by the definition of workman because being a Private Secretary his duties were to take dictation and to type the same. Duty roster (Annexure 'L') has been attached to this revision but it appears that it was not placed before the learned lower Court. In the absence of any document on the point of duties of the respondent, the impugned order does not appear to be incorrect.
2. The other argument is that the order was to become effective from 15‑9‑1984, so status quo anti could be ordered on 16‑9‑1984. It has not been shown that the termination order had been implemented by relieving the respondent before 16‑9‑1984. 15‑9‑1984 was holiday, so the respondent could be relieved on 16‑9‑1984. So, the stay order issued on the said date was effective. This is not the case of the petitioner that on 14‑9‑1984 the respondent had been relieved from his duties pursuant to the termination order. The impugned order thus does not appear to be suffering from any legal infirmity. The revision is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer