1991 PLP 892 (PLC(CS))

Gul Muhammad Soomro, Representative for Respondent. Date of hearing: 20th May, 1991. These five suo motu revision applications are against the orders of the learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No. IV at Karachi, dated 7-2-1991, whereby the learned Labour Court dismissed the Interim Stay Applications of the applicants.

2. I have heard Mr. Latif Saghar, learned Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, learned representative for the respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case appear to be that applicants Gulzar Abbass and Muhammad Siddique were initially appointed as `Conductors' by the respondents while three applicants namely, Ghulam Rabbani, Iftikhar Hussain and Ashique Hussain were appointed as `Drivers'. The applicant's claim to be working in higher grades viz. Traffic Assistants and Assistant Yard Masters since about six years, when they were reverted to their original posts vide separate orders by respondents in November and December, 1990. After serving grievance notices upon the respondent the applicants filed grievance petitions before learned Labour Court which are still pending. They had moved Interim Stay Applications, on which initially ad interim stay was granted by the learned Labour Court, but subsequently ad-Interim stay was vacated and the Stay Applications of the applicants were dismissed by the learned Labour Court vide impugned orders.

4. Mr. Latif Saghar has mainly relied upon the decision of this Tribunal, dated 28-4-1991 in suo motu Revision Applications Nos. KAR-119 to 127 of 1991 and KAR-134 of 1991. In the aforesaid decision the respondents, who claimed to be working on higher grade since several years were reverted by the applicant KTC vide orders in the month of November, 1990 and respondents in that case were granted ad-interim stay by the learned Labour Court No. I against which KTC, who is respondent in the instant case, filed suo motu applications which were dismissed by this Tribunal mainly on the ground that on 23-4-1991, 17 Conductors and one Driver, including some of the respondents, had been promoted to the higher grade, which in a way supported the claim of the respondents in these applications.

5. Mr. Gul Muhammad Soomro, learned representative for the respondents, conceded that the case of the present applicants was also similar to. the case of the respondents in the aforesaid decision, but contends that the applicants had been working in the higher grade intermittently and as `stop-gap arrangement'. He, further, contended that all of them were not drawing salary in the higher grade. Be that as it may, as under the similar circumstances, one of the learned Labour Courts has granted Interim Stay Order which has been maintained by this Tribunal, vide aforesaid decision, it will not be proper and just to refuse Interim stay to the present applicants. Under the circumstances impugned order of the learned Labour Court is revised to the extent that status quo is allowed to continue till decision of the grievance applications with the condition that the applicants would net draw salary of higher grade, if they have not been getting salary of the higher grade. The learned Labour Court is directed to dispose of grievance applications without much delay, preferably within three months.

6. All the revision applications are disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./1927/Lb. S ????? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.