1988 PLP 517 (PLC)

Malik Ghulam Rasool for Petitioners (in Revisions Nos.LHR‑649 and LHR‑650 of 1986). Sajjad Hussain Bokhari for Respondents (in Revisions Los, JG‑584 to JG‑587 of 1986 and JG‑591 to JG‑592 of 1986). Ch. Mahboob Alam for Respondents (in Revisions Nos. LHR‑649 to LHR‑650 of 1986). Date of hearing: 10th January, 1987. As common questions are involved in the above mentioned is revision petitions they are being disposed of together through single judgment. Revisions No. l to 6 report that orders dated 17‑9‑1986 are illegal and wrong whereas revisions No.7 and & have been bro0ght against the orders dated 13‑9‑1986 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore.

2. By the impugned orders the applications for stay brought by the petitioners were dismissed on the sole ground that the reversion orders of the petitioners which had been challenges by them in their petitions were passed for the implementation of the decision of Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore dated 22‑1‑1978. The sold order of Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore, which was confirmed in appeal by this Tribunal on 23‑12‑1981 and further confirmed by the High Court in Writ Petition vide judgment reported in 1986 P L I: 347, was passed on the basis of a settlement of 1969 holding that all vacancies in the subordinate cadre could be filled in by promotion. It was further directed that the persons who had been directly appointed against such posts, be terminated and the persons who had been promoted to such posts from ex‑cadre be reverted. Admittedly, all the petitioners were promoted as ticket examiners from traffic cadre and none of them came from any ex‑cadre post. Abdul Ghafoor, Ghulam Habib and Basharat Ahmad, petitioners, were promoted from the posts of conductor whereas Abdul Hakim, Allah Bakhsh, Tauqir Hussain and Sikandar Ali, petitioners, came from the posts of booking clerk. Mohammad Attaullah, petitioner, was Assistant Depot Superintendent before he was promoted to the post of ticket examiner the posts of booking clerk, conductor and Assistant Depot Superintendent belong to the traffic cadre according to the Rules of 1976. So the petitioners prima facie are not hit by the decision of Punjab Labour Court No.l, Lahore dated 22‑1‑1978.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents namely Mr. Mahboob Alam appearing for the PRTC in the cases of Basharat Ahmad and Mohammad Attaullah has argued that the said petitioners challenged the orders of reversion on the civil side before the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) and got stay order, therefore, the learned lower Court had no jurisdiction. No certified copy of the petitions brought before the NIRC and no certified copy of the orders issued by the NIRC, whereby such an application may have been entertained and stay order issued, has been placed on the record by the learned counsel for the respondents in the said two cases. In reply it has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no such plea was taken by the respondents in the written statement. Since the point raised by the learned counsel for the respondents is a mixed question of fact and law and as presently there is no material on the record to show that individually before the NIRC the orders of reversion have been challenged by the petitioners or any of them, therefore, it is difficult to express any opinion at this stage. This' point may be argued before the learned lower Court. Since the grounds A given by the learned lower Court in the impugned orders are not correct, the stay applications were wrongly dismissed.

4. As a result of what has been observed above, all the revision petitions are accepted and setting aside the impugned orders, the learned lower Court is directed to redecide the applications for interim stay. Till the learned lower Court finally decides the petitions for B interim injunction, the implementation of the orders of reversion shall stand as suspended. A. E./276/Lb.P Revisions accepted