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.
Appeal No. LHR‑220 of 1886, decided on 29th May, 1886.
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A, 37 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Interim stay order being not a decision under S. 25‑A would not be appeal-able‑‑Appeal, however, can be treated as revision‑‑Rules of Railways Establishment discouraging transfer of such employees‑‑Labour Court granting stay order against transfer from one station to another‑‑Order of Labour Court, held, not suffering from any legal infirmity, would not justify interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Muhammad Yawar Ali Khan for Appellant.
Ch. Fazal Elahi for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 24th May, 1986.
The order dated 26‑2‑1986, whereby the despondent has been granted a stay order has been challenged in the present appeal.
2. The order not being a decision delivered under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, no appeal lies. The appeal could be treated as a revision but I do not think that the impugned order suffers from any legal infirmity.
3. The respondent was removed from service by way of punishment but on departmental appeal was demoted to the post of pointsman for one year and was transferred to Nishatabad. The stay order is for not implementing the said order. The respondent is a low‑paid employee getting pay of about Rs.600 per mensem including allowances. It will be difficult for him to shift from Gujrat to Nishatabad. Tehsil and District Faisalabad. According to Railway Rules such transfers have been discouraged.
4. As a result the revision is rejected.
A. E.
Revision rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer