1988 PLP 544 (PLC)

‑‑‑S.38(5)‑‑Complaint‑‑Stay order passed by Labour Court allegedly violated‑‑Stay order whether brought to‑notice of authority complained against not proved‑‑Violation of stay order, held, was not established‑‑Complaint, in circumstances, dismissed. Maqbool Anees for Petitioner. Syed Iqbal Ahmad Gillani for Respondent. Date of hearing: 25th February, 1987. This is a complaint brought under section 38(5) 1.4.0. 1968, complaining that the stay order dated 20‑7‑1986 recorded by the learned Labour Court No.9 Multan, has been violated by terminating the services of the petitioner. The stay order was to the effect "his services should not be terminated till the date fixed". The date fixed was 2‑8‑

86. The case of the petitioner is that the stay order was got diaried in the office of the respondent on the same date i.e. 20‑7‑1986 and Shah Wali, Accounts Clerk, had orally informed the respondent about the said order and whereupon the respondent replied" how a stay order could be issued. "The petitioner did not corroborate the statement of Shah Wall by stating that the latter had gone to the respondent. This is true that according to the statement of Shah Wali he alone had gone to the respondent but the petitioner should have corroborated him by stating that he had gone to the office of the respondent, if the deposition of Shah Wali had been correct. Rather if in reality the respondent had been informed about the stay order on the same date as deposed by Shah Wali, the petitioner to whom the stay order concerned would have accompanied Shah Wali to the respondent. The respondent has in his statement denied the fact that Shah Wali had come to him. If the respondent was present in the office the proper thing which normally was to be done was to get the stay order placed before him after it was diaried. So it does not stand proved that the respondent got the knowledge of stay order'' on 20‑7‑86.

2. So far as the factum of the termination of service is concerned there is no documentary evidence. No copy of the termination order had been brought on the record. The case of the respondent is that the service of the petitioner was contractual and the period had come to an end on 20‑7‑86 therefore, no order of termination was to be passed nor it was passed. According to him the services being contractual it automatically came an end on the expiry of the period. The petitioner stated that according to the respondent the service was contractual and the last date was 20‑7‑

86. He has not stated anywhere that he was a temporary or permanent workman. It is, therefore, possible that the service was contractual and period ended on 20‑7‑

86. The petitioner said that in the presence of Muhammad Yasin he was orally asked by the respondent not to perform duty. But Muhammad Yasin has been examined by the petitioner who has denied this fact. He definitely said that either on 20‑7‑86 or after that the respondent or any other officer did not stop the petitioner from discharging, his duties. He also said that in his presence respondent never stopped the petitioner from working. So the uncorroborated statement of the petitioner stands completely B controverted by the statement of the respondent and of Muhammad Yasin. So violation of stay order dated 20‑7‑86 does not Stand established.

3. As a result the complaint is dismissed. A. E. /299/Lb.P??????????????????????? ‑‑‑‑‑???????????????????????????? Complaint dismissed.