1989 PLP 340 (PLC)
ABDUL SHAKOOR and another Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION and 2 others
| Citation | 1989 PLP 340 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ABDUL SHAKOOR and another Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 340 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 340 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 340 (PLC) (ABDUL SHAKOOR and another Versus PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nazir Ahmad Naz for Petitioners.
- Date of hearing 15th August, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Ad interim injunction‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service‑‑Injunction against implementation of impugned order, could be sought if order was not yet implemented‑‑Non‑implementation not proved and no evidence produced regarding petitioner being still on duty‑‑Order of Labour Court dismissing application for interim injunction was upheld in revision by Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Ad interim injunction‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service‑‑Injunction against implementation of impugned order, could be sought if order was not yet implemented‑‑Non‑implementation not proved and no evidence produced regarding petitioner being still on duty‑‑Order of Labour Court dismissing application for interim injunction was upheld in revision by Appellate Tribunal. Nazir Ahmad Naz for Petitioners. Date of hearing 15th August, 1987. The two revisions captioned above emerge from the orders dated 19‑7‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, whereby applications for interim injunction brought by the petitioners in their main grievance petitions brought under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1909 were dismissed.
2. Needless to say that an injunction for stopping the implementation of an order can be sought if the said order has not yet been implemented. In spite of the fact that an opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to bring relevant documents to show that on the date when the grievance petitions were brought and the learned lower Court issued ad interim stay orders, the petitioners were on duty and that at present they are still on duty, but no document has been g produced. Where documentary evidence is available, affidavit has no value. The record of the duties performed by the ticket examiners is maintained and copy of the said record could be produced by the petitioners to show that they were on duty on the date when grievance petitions were brought. The learned representative has during arguments admitted that no application for copy of any document has been made to the respondents. If such an application had been made and copy had been refused, of course the affidavit of the petitioners could have been considered. Since no document ‑has been produced, the presumption is that no such document exists which may show that the petitioners are still on duty and that they were on duty on the date on which katcha stay orders were issued by the learned lower Court. In these circumstances, there remains little scope to interfere with the impugned orders.
3. As a result, the revisions are dismissed in limine. A.E./399/Lb. P. Revisions dismissed.