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‑200 of 1984, decided on 30th October, 1984.
‑‑ Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3‑a)‑Ad interim stay order ‑ Petitioner a driver of Transport Corporation seeking redress against termination of service purportedly for reasons of vision failure‑Certificate of Eyes Specialist that vision was normal produced‑Labour Court refusing to issue status quo‑Petitioner, in circumstances, held, had a prima facie case and balance of convenience was in his favour and was also likely to suffer irreparable injury by impugned order Appellate Tribunal in revision setting aside order of Labour Court and restraining employer respondent from implementing impugned order till decision of grievance petition.
Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Petitioner.
Faizullah for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 28th October, 1984.
The order, dated 24th July, 1984 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore is said to be illegal and improper, whereby the application of the petitioner for ad interim stay was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is a driver and on account of vision failure, his services were terminated. He has challenged the said order and has applied for maintaining status quo till the decision of the main petition.
3. Dr. Muhammad Yaqin, a well‑known Eye Specialist, has issued certificate that the vision of the appellant is normal. The petitioner has thus a prima facie case. Obviously the balance of convenience goes in favour of the petitioner, because the inconvenience likely to be caused to him by the refusal of the stay order will be greater than the one likely to be faced by the respondent. The petitioner will become jobless.
4. The petitioner is likely to suffer from irreparable injury also. As present he being in service has challenged the order of termination and if he is removed from service, he shall have to pray for re‑instatement.
5. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order, the respondent is restrained from implementing the order of removal of the petitioner from service till the decision of the main grievance petition.
A. E.
Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer