1989 PLP 1855 (SCMR)

NAINIUDDIN, J.‑‑By this petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution the petitioner seeks leave to appeal from the order of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 21‑3‑1989, passed in C.R. No.57 of 1989 whereby petitioner's revision against the order of Additional District Judge, dated 25‑2‑198`1 was dismissed in the following circumstances:‑

1. The petitioner was an employee of Heavy Foundry and Forge Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd., Taxila, District Rawalpindi. On 22‑9‑1988, by a letter of even date he was prematurely retired w.e.f. 24‑9‑1988. The letter was followed by another letter, dated 24‑9‑1988 wherein he was informed that he was allowed dues with full premature retirement benefits under the rules of SEC w.e.f.' 24‑9‑1988. The benefits were:‑ (i) Payment of salary upto 24‑9‑1988. (ii) Encashment of 100% earned leave ‑ 180 days. (iii) Provident Fund Contribution as per Provident Fund's Rules. (iv) Pension as per rules. (v) 180 days' salary in lieu of notice period.

2. The last benefit given to the petitioner seems to be in accord with rule 15(b) of State Heavy Engineering and Machine Tool Corporation Limited Service Rules, which reads as follows:‑ "After confirmation the services of an officer of Executive cadre in regular service may be terminated without assigning any reason by giving 180 days notice on either side or in lieu thereof by paying a sum equal to the full or proportionate salary for the un-expired notice period."

3. The petitioner questioned the order of premature retirement from service in a suit and also applied for temporary injunction, which was granted. However, on appeal, the learned Additional District Judge vacated the injunction.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Additional District Judge, the petitioner riled a revision application, but failed as stated before. The reasons, which weighed with the learned Single Judge of the High Court in dismissing the revision application, inter alia, were that:‑ (a) the order of retirement had already taken effect before the civil suit was instituted to challenge it; and (b) even if the petitioner had merely an arguable case, the other two essential factors, i.e., presence of balance of convenience, which is in fact balance of inconvenience and causing of irreparable loss did not exist.

5. The reasons given by the High Court are good and in accord with the decision of this Court in Shahrada Muhammad Umar Beg v. Sultan Mahmood Khan and another PLD 1970 S C 139, which was also a service matter and wherein while confirming the order of refusal of temporary injunction it was observed at page 14‑1 of the report as follows:‑ "The learned Additional District Judge has in a very comprehensive and carefully written order, considered all the relevant features of this case, in the light of the well‑settled principles for the grant or refusal of temporary injunctions in accordance with law, which are, firstly, whether the plaintiff has a prima facie good case, secondly, whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of the grant of the injunction and, thirdly, whether the plaintiff would suffer an irreparable loss if the injunction is refused."

6. On the point of irreparable loss, it was vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the order of injunction granted by the learned Civil Judge is not restored, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss inasmuch as B he has to vacate the house provided by respondent No.1 and the education of his son will he disturbed. In our view the reasons stated might lead to some inconvenience, but they do not make it a case of irreparable loss. We, therefore, find no merits in this petition and accordingly dismiss it.

7. The suit will be decided by the trial Court on its own merits without taking into consideration any observation made herein. M.A.K./1‑88/S Petition dismissed.