Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., LAHORE VS Respondent: GHAZANFAR ALI
1993 P L C 914
1993 P L C 914
[Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab]
Present: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal
NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COOPERATIVE FINANCE CORPORATION LTD., LAHORE through General Manager
Versus
Raja GHAZANFAR ALI
Revision No. LHR‑575 of 1986, decided on 17th November, 1986.
Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑Ss. 2D‑A & 38(3‑a)‑--Grievance petition‑-‑Ad interim order‑‑‑Petition against dismissal from service‑‑‑Dismissal order since served upon and received by petitioner and implemented by striking him off from roll of establishment‑‑‑Employer, in circumstances, held, could not be prevented from implementing impugned order‑‑‑Ad interim order passed by Labour Court preventing employer from dismissing petitioner workman during pendency of grievance petition set aside by Appellate Tribunal in revision.
PLD 1970 SC 17 rel.
Malik Muhammad Asghar for Petitioner.
Zafar Saleem for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 28th October, 1986.
ORDER
This is a revision reporting that the order dated 4‑10‑1986 stopping the petitioner from implementing the order of dismissal dated 10‑9‑1986 passed against the respondent, is without jurisdiction.
2. On the charge of misconduct the respondent was charge‑sheeted and after holding an inquiry was dismissed from service on 10‑9‑1986. The respondent had on 9‑9‑1986 brought an application under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 challenging the charge‑sheet and inquiry proceedings. He prayed for ad interim stay order to prevent the petitioner from dismissing him from service during the pendency of the grievance petition. The petition was accepted vide the impugned order dated 4‑10‑1986. The learned lower Court has not said that the order of dismissal was not given effect to. Question of staying an order arises when such an order has not yet been implemented. The order of dismissal was sent to the respondent by registered post, which reached him on 14‑9‑1986 as is evident from photocopy of A.D. receipt Annexure `F'. It carries the date as 14‑9‑1986. Photocopies of the attendance register have been brought on the file, which show that the name of the respondent was struck off on account of the dismissal order. Since the dismissal order had been given effect to and had been implemented by sending the respondent off duty and by striking off his name from the roll of the petitioner, no question of preventing the petitioner from implementing the said order could arise. Of course if the grievance petition succeeds, there will be issued a direction to give duty to the respondent. No stay order could, therefore, be issued. PLD 1970 SC 17 or 491 may be cited in this respect.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the order of injunction dated 4‑10‑1986, the petition for ad interim injunction is dismissed.
A.E./223/Lb.P Revision dismissed.