Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: ABDUL SHAKOOR VS Respondent: PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
1989 P L C 340
1989 P L C 340
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
ABDUL SHAKOOR and another
Versus
PUNJAB ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION and 2 others
Revisions Nos. BR‑382 and BR‑383 of 1987, decided on 16th August, 1987
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑
‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Ad interim injunction‑‑Grievance petition against termination of service‑‑Injunction against implementation of impugned order, could be sought if order was not yet implemented‑‑Non‑implementation not proved and no evidence produced regarding petitioner being still on duty‑‑Order of Labour Court dismissing application for interim injunction was upheld in revision by Appellate Tribunal.
Nazir Ahmad Naz for Petitioners.
Date of hearing 15th August, 1987.
JUDGMENT
The two revisions captioned above emerge from the orders dated 19‑7‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 8, Bahawalpur, whereby applications for interim injunction brought by the petitioners in their main grievance petitions brought under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. 1909 were dismissed.
2. Needless to say that an injunction for stopping the implementation of an order can be sought if the said order has not yet been implemented. In spite of the fact that an opportunity was afforded to the petitioners to bring relevant documents to show that on the date when the grievance petitions were brought and the learned lower Court issued ad interim stay orders, the petitioners were on duty and that at present they are still on duty, but no document has been g produced. Where documentary evidence is available, affidavit has no value. The record of the duties performed by the ticket examiners is maintained and copy of the said record could be produced by the petitioners to show that they were on duty on the date when grievance petitions were brought. The learned representative has during arguments admitted that no application for copy of any document has been made to the respondents. If such an application had been made and copy had been refused, of course the affidavit of the petitioners could have been considered. Since no document ‑has been produced, the presumption is that no such document exists which may show that the petitioners are still on duty and that they were on duty on the date on which katcha stay orders were issued by the learned lower Court. In these circumstances, there remains little scope to interfere with the impugned orders.
3. As a result, the revisions are dismissed in limine.
A.E./399/Lb. P. Revisions dismissed.