1989 PLP 271 (PLC)

N L R 1978 Labour 466 held not applicable. P L D 1971 S C 342; P L D 1975 S C 32 and P L D 1970 S C 180 distinguished. Asmat Kamal for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1987. The above captioned four revisions emerge from the orders dated 19‑7‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, whereby the applications of the petitioners for ad interim stay were dismissed. Since common questions of fact and law arc involved in all the four revisions, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.

2. The facts are that the services of the petitioners were terminated on the ground that their appointments were against the provisions of the settlement of 1969, on the basis of which a decision was given by the learned Labour Court No, 1 on 22‑1‑1978. It was argued before the learned lower Court as well as has been urged before me that since the petitioners were not party to the case decided on 22‑1‑1978, the said judgment is not binding on them and on the basis of the same their services could not be terminated. The learned lower Court has held that the settlement of 1969 was arrived at between the respondents and the C.BA. and that since it related to whole of the establishment, the petitioners were bound by it. At this stage no final opinion can be expressed on this point but it can be said that prima facie the respondent was justified in taking guidance from the decision dated 22‑1‑1978 for filing in the vacancies in future. According to the decision, no direct appointment can be made on the post upon which the petitioners were appointed and for this reason the respondent has terminated the services of the petitioners. So the learned lower Court was justified in saying that the petitioners have no prima facie case. The learned lower Court has not discussed the remaining two conditions for issuing a stay order but it makes no difference since one of the three necessary ingredients which is that the party asking for the stay order should have a prima facie case is failing. Learned counsel for the petitioners has cited number of rulings such as N L R 1978 Labour 466, P L D 1971 SC 342, PLD 1975 SC 32 and PLD l970 SC 180.So far as the first mentioned ruling is concerned, it does not support the case of the petitioners because it was held therein that the stay order issued by the Labour Court was not appealable. At that time there may not be a provision of revision and the order having not been passed under section 25‑A may not have been appealable. It has not been said in the ruling that even if a party has no prima facie case, it is entitled to the stay order. P L D 1970 S C 180 is also not germane to the present case. It has been observed that the plaintiff has to make out only a good prima facie case. As held by me supra, the petitioner have failed to establish that they have a prima facie case. Likewise in P L D 1971 S C 342 the point involved was whether the Commissioner had power as appellate authority to suspend the operation of the order of punishment awarded to the accused under section 18 of the Goondas Act. It was held that he had jurisdiction, if he was of the opinion that he convicted person had good prima facie case. The dispute involved is not whether the Labour Court has no jurisdiction to grant injunction, therefore, the ruling is not relevant to the case. In P L D 1975 S C 32. too was involved the same point whether the appellate authority had jurisdiction to grant stay and thus this ruling also is not germane to the facts of the present case. The learned lower Court thus has rightly dismissed the stay application.

3. As a result, the revisions fail and are dismissed in limine. However, if the petitioners improve their case and think that they have a prima facie case that 1 balance of convenience goes in their favour and that they are likely to suffer from irreparable loss or injury if interim injunction is not issued, they may apply for a stay order if till then the orders of termination of their services are not implemented.??? A.E./402/Lb.P????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.