1995 PLP 579 (PLC)

1973 SCMR 96; PLD 1975 SC 32 and 1985 PLC 596 ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑‑‑

O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969; S.25‑A‑‑‑Irreparable loss‑‑‑Definition of‑‑‑Irreparable loss, held, was the which could not be calculated in terms of money. Ch. Khalid Farooq for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 6th October, 1986. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 28‑9‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, whereby the application of the petitioner for interim stay was dismissed, is wrong and improper.

2. The petitioner was a ticket examiner and had been reverted to the post of Assistant Depot Superintendent. He has challenged the said order in his grievance petition and applied for ad interim injunction, which has been refused. It has been argued that the petitioner was holding the post of ticket examiner since 8‑7‑1979 and without any reason was reverted, therefore, he has an arguable case. This may be so, but there are two other factors, which are to be considered before issuing a stay order. One is that the person asking for stay order would face inconvenience if the stay order is not issued and the third is that he may be likely to suffer from an irreparable injury. If the petitioner ultimately succeeds in his grievance petition, he can get the difference of the wages and thus it cannot be said that he is likely to suffer from any irreparable injury. Irreparable loss is that which cannot be calculated in terms of money. The pay which the petitioner was getting as ticket examiner and which he would take as Depot Superintendent is known and thus the difference can be calculated. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited 1973 SCMR 96, PLD 1975 SC 32 and 1985 PLC 596 and has argued that in service matters no question of irreparable loss arises. In 1973 SCMR 96 it is not said that the remaining two factors i.e. balance of convenience and irreparable loss are not to be considered. In the case from which the ruling arose the points of inconvenience and loss may not have been disputed, therefore, no finding was recorded thereon. The ruling, therefore, is distinguishable from the facts of the present case. In the second ruling cited by the learned counsel too it is not said that the Courts have not to see whether the balance of convenience goes in favour of the person asking for the interim relief and that he is likely to suffer or not from any irreparable loss. Only this much has been said that the interim relief is ancillary or incidental to the main relief and the Courts can grant the same. In the case from which 1985 PLC 596 arose, the worker was a driver and it was held that he was likely to suffer from irreparable injury by the refusal of the stay order, but in the present case this is not the position.

3. In these circumstances the learned lower Court was justified in refusing to issue stay order. So, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine. M.Y.H./203/Lb.P Petition dismissed.