1978 PLP 288 (PLC)

‑‑ S. 25‑A ‑ Compulsory retirement from service of Post Office employee‑Application for re‑instatement with an application for stay order‑Junior Labour Court issuing stay order at time when order of retirement already given effect and substitute also appointed ‑No irreparable loss to retired employee apprehended by non‑issuance of interim stay and balance of convenience also not in his favour‑Order of Junior Labour Court erroneous and not legally sustainable and hence set aside. Mr. Izhar‑ul‑Haque, respondent who was employed as porter in R.M.S. Post Office was compulsory retired from service by the Superintendent, Sorting and Air Division, G. P. O., Lahore by this order, dated 8th August, 1975.

2. Mr. Izhar‑ul‑Haque felt aggrieved of the order of his compulsory retire ment and filed an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the Post Master‑General, Lahore, and Superintendent, Sorting and Air Division G. P. O., Lahore before Junior Labour Court No. 2, Lahore on 16th August, 1975, seeking his re‑instatement with back benefits.

3. He challenged the orders of his compulsory retirement on various grounds such as the Authority which ordered his compulsory retirement was not competent to do so under the Rules under which it has purported to act.

4. Along with the application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, the respondent also moved an application for stay order praying that pending the final disposal of the main petition, the impugned order might be suspended. On this application for stay order of the respondent the learned Lower Court, vide its interim order dated 16th August 1975, granted an Interim stay to the respondent staying the operation of the impugned order, dated 8th August, 1975, till further orders.

5. The appellant felt aggrieved of the aforesaid order, dated 16th August, 1975, of the learned lower Court and impugned the said order through the present appeal.

6. I have carefully gone through the record of the case and have also heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. This is a common ground between the parties that the orders of the compulsory retirement of the respondent has already been acted upon inasmuch as also been struck of the establishment of the appellant with effect from 9th August 1975. It has been brought to my notice during the course of argument that new hand has already been appointed in place of the respondent. The ad Interim stay order has been issued by the learned lower Court on 16th August, 1975. This means that long before the issuance of the ad interim stay order by the lower Court the respondent had already been compulsorily retired from service and the order of his compulsory retirement had taken effect. His substitute has already been appointed. In the circum stances the balance of convenience was no more in favour of the respondent. Moreover the respondent by the non‑issuance of the inasmuch stay as prayed for by him does not apprehend any irreparable loss, inasmuch as if ultimately his retirement is held to be illegal he may be ordered to be re instated with back‑benefits. Thus poking from all the relevant angles viz., the principles governing the grant of temporary injunction I.e. prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the respondent is not entitled to the temporary injunction as prayed for by him. In the light of what has been said above we conclude that the impugned order of the learned lower Court is erroneous and is not legally sustainable. We would accordingly accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order and dismiss the application of the respondent for the grant of interim stay order. The records of the case be remitted back immediately to the lower Court for deciding the case on merits in accordance with law.

7. The parties are directed to appear before the learned lower Court for further proceedings on 8th November 1975.