1988 PLP 1008 (PLC(CS))

Shafiq ul Islam for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th February, 1987. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 28‑9‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Lahore Court No. 1, Labour, whereby the application for interim stay of the petitioners was rejected, is wrong and without any legal effect.

2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners were employed as conductors and, thereafter, were promoted to the post of Assistant Depot Superintendent (ADS). They were further promoted to the post of Ticket Examiner (T.E.). They were reverted to the post of ADS on the plea of implementation of the order of the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore dated 22‑1‑1978 which was confirmed in appeal by this Tribunal and further confirmed in the writ petition.

3. The learned lower Court has dismissed the application solely on the ground that no irreparable loss is likely to be suffered by the petitioners by the refusal of the stay order because if their main petition is accepted on merits, they can be restored to their original post with full back benefits. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are likely to suffer irreparable loss as they would be deprived of T.A./D.A. and night duty allowance which they are getting as T.E. On the other hand, it has been argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have no prima facie case, inasmuch as in order to implement the order dated 22‑1‑1978 they have been reverted. It has also been argued that balance of convenience goes in favour of the respondents because by issuing stay order the work of transport would be disturbed. Making reference to the decision dated 22‑1‑1978 passed by the learned Punjab Labour Court No. 1; Lahore it has been argued that, promotion from the post of ADS to the post of Ticket Examiner could not be made according to the judgment mentioned above. According to the decision, dated 22‑1‑1978, the posts of conductor, junior clerk/booking clerk/checker belong to the same scale and cadre. A booking clerk could be promoted as senior booking clerk and the checker as head checker. Further, senior booking clerk could be transferred to the post of conductor instructor and the head checker to the post of commercial inspector. The post of ADS is not mentioned therein. The post of ADS was created according to the rules of 1976 and the said post is equivalent to ; the post of senior booking clerk and since senior booking clerk could be promoted as conductor instructor and not as ticket examiner, the petitioners, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, were wrongly promoted to the post of ticket examiner. The post of ticket examiner was created afterwards i and checkers could be promoted to the said post. No final opinion can be expressed on this point since the main petition is pending before the learned lower Court and is yet to be finally decided where this question would come under discussion. However, the point is worth consideration if the petitioners are hit by the decision dated 22‑1‑1978.

4. It has not been shown that any irreparable loss is to be suffered by the petitioners by the refusal of the stay order. In spite of the fact that the learned lower Court dismissed the application for interim stay only for the reason that the petitioners are not likely to suffer irreparable injury, yet no document has been placed on the file even at the revisional stage to show that in reality the petitioners will suffer any irreparable injury. The learned counsel for the A petitioners has argued that as ticket examiner the petitioners are getting night duty allowance which will not be paid to them if the order of‑ reversion is implemented. This is true that the said allowance would not be paid to them, but if that allowance is fixed, it can be calculated in case the main petition of the petitioners is accepted and they are reposted as ticket examiner. However, if the said‑ allowance is not fixed, but is paid m proportion to the period of night duties, the loss cannot be calculated in terms of money. The rules under which night duty allowance is paid could have shown whether the said allowance is paid monthly at a fixed rate or otherwise. Non‑production of the rules in spite of the fact that the stay petition was dismissed only for the reason that the petitioners are not likely to suffer any irreparable loss, raises a presumption that the allowance is a fixed emolument.

5. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed. However, if at any stage before the order of reversion is implemented, the petitioners satisfy the learned lower Court that they have a good prima facie case for the issuance of interim injunction, they may again make an application in this respect. A.E./289/Lb.P Revision dismissed.