Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. LHR‑351 of 1985, decided on 10th July, 1985.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 37(3) & 38(3‑a)‑‑Ad interim injunction‑‑Appeal‑‑Revision‑ Labour Court granting ad interim injunction restraining employer from realising amount of alleged damage from workman‑‑Order of Labour Court passed without stating that workman had a prima facie case and was likely to suffer any irreparable loss‑‑Impugned order, in circumstances, held, not maintainable‑‑Objection that impugned order was not appealable‑‑Appellate Tribunal, in circumstances, treating appeal as revision and setting aside impugned order of Labour Court.
Khalilur Rehman for Appellant. Abdul Ghafoor for Respondent Date of hearing: 24th June, 1985.
The order, dated 8‑5‑1985 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore has been challenged whereby the application of the respondent for ad interim injunction was accepted and the appellant was restrained from realising the. Damages of Rs.5,419 for the respondent.
2. A theft was committed of the Railway's materials when the respondent was the incharge. The allegation against the respondent was that he did not diligently persue the case in the Court.
3. It has been argued by the learned representative of the respondent that appeal does not lie as the order passed by the learned lower Court is not covered by section 37(3) of the I.R.O., 1969. The request of the learned counsel for the appellant is that if appeal does not lie the memorandum of appeal may be treated as a revision. The impugned order is not maintainable, therefore, I am inclined to treat the appeal as a revision. Three conditions should pre exist for issuing ad interim injunction. One is that there should be at least an arguable case. The second is that the balance of convenience should be in favour of the party seeking injunction and last is that there should be likelihood of irrepairable loss. The learned lower Court has said only this much that by the refusal of stay order the respondent would be put to inconvenience but has not said the respondent has a prima facie case and that he is likely to suffer from any irrepairable loss. . Needless to say that irreparable loss is that which cannot be calculated in terms of money. In view of the defects pointed out above the impugned order is not sustainable.
3. As a result of the observations made above, the revision is and setting aside the impugned order, the learned lower Court i to redecide the application for ad interim injunction.
Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer