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‑230 of 1984, decided on 28th Novehnb6t, 1984.
‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38 (3‑a)‑Interim stay order ‑ Balance of conve nience Badli conductor of Road Transport Corporation seeking declaration for confirmation on grounds of having worked for more than nine months‑Labour Court refusing to grant interim stay order against termination pending grievance petition‑Petitioner whether or not would ultimately succeed or fail‑Point arguable- Balance of convenience, in circumstances, held, in favour of peti tioner because irreparable injury likely to be suffered if terminated being treated as irregular employee‑Order of Labour Court, held, illegal and Appellate Tribunal m revision setting same aside and employer directed not to terminate petitioner on grounds of being irregular employee pending decision on grievance petition.
Muhammad Zaman Qureshi for Petitioner.
Faizullah Khan for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 25th November, 1984.
The order dated 10th September, 1984 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore is informed to be wrong and improper.
2. The petitioner was a Badli Conductor. He seeks a declaration for confirmation on the ground that he had worked for more than nine months. The concept of Badli in P.U.T.C. may be different from the one defined in Standing Order 1 of Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 but at this stage it cannot be said if the petitioner would ultimately succeed or fail. The point, however, is arguable. Balance of convenience goes in favour of the petitioner. Irreparable injury is likely to be suffered by him if before his petition is finally decided, be is terminated as be is being treated as an irregular employee. So the order refusing the stay order is not legal.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court, the respondent is directed not to terminate the services of the petitioner till the decision of his grievance petition on the ground that he is not a regular employee.
A. E.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer