1989 PLP 55 (PLC)
ZILA COUNCIL, SAHIWAL Versus MUHAMMAD YAR
| Citation | 1989 PLP 55 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | ZILA COUNCIL, SAHIWAL Versus MUHAMMAD YAR |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance mm of 1969)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 55 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance mm of 1969)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 55 (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 55 (PLC) (ZILA COUNCIL, SAHIWAL Versus MUHAMMAD YAR). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 17th June, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Temporary injunction‑‑Conditions for grant of temporary injunction‑‑Arguable case, balance of convenience and petitioner's likelihood to Pakistan Labour Cases suffer loss which could not be calculated in terms of money‑‑Petitioner reverted from post of Mate to post of Baildar‑‑Both posts in same pay scale‑‑Petitioner not likely to suffer any loss‑‑Labour Court, held, had wrongly issued stay order against reversion order and same set aside by Appellate Tribunal in revision. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Temporary injunction‑‑Conditions for grant of temporary injunction‑‑Arguable case, balance of convenience and petitioner's likelihood to Pakistan Labour Cases suffer loss which could not be calculated in terms of money‑‑Petitioner reverted from post of Mate to post of Baildar‑‑Both posts in same pay scale‑‑Petitioner not likely to suffer any loss‑‑Labour Court, held, had wrongly issued stay order against reversion order and same set aside by Appellate Tribunal in revision. Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioner. Respondent in person. Date of hearing: 17th June, 1987. The order dated 25‑3‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 9, Multan whereby temporary injunction has been issued against the petitioner restraining it from implementing the order of reversion of the respondent, is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that scale of Mate and Baildar in Zila Council Sahiwal is the same, therefore, the respondent has not suffered any irreparable loss by the order of reversion. There are three conditions for issuing a stay order. One is that the person asking for it should have at least an arguable case; the second is that balance of convenience should go in his favour and the third is that he is likely to suffer loss which cannot be calculated in terms of money. Even if it be said that the respondent has an argueable case and balance of convenience goes in his favour, he is not likely to suffer from any irreparable injury by the refusal of the stay order, inasmuch as, by the reversion he remains in the same scale in which he was when he was Mate. The respondent has brought a certificate from Zila Council, Multan to the effect that scale of Mate is No.
2. The respondent is employed in Zila Council, Sahiwal and not in Zila Council, Multan, therefore, the certificate brought by him is not relevant to the case. The petitioner has placed on the record office copy of A Schedule of Establishment, according to which Mate and Baildar have been shown in the same scale i.e., 440‑10‑
640. Since the respondent is not likely to suffer from irreparable injury, the learned lower Court wrongly issued the stay order.
3. As a result the revision is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. A.E./398/Lb.P Revision accepted