QAMAR ABBAS SHAH Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID G.E.(A) SOUTH, M.E.S., LAHORE

This is a contempt petition alleging that the order dated 8‑2‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.l Lahore whereby the respondent was prevented from acting upon the transfer order was violated. Transfer order was passed on 5‑2‑1987. It was challenged before the learned Punjab Labour Court No. l and application for interim stay was made whereupon on 8‑2‑87 the order was passed to the effect that the transfer order could not be acted upon till next, date. According to application copy of which is Annexure‑H made to the respondent intimation of the stay order was sent by a telegram on 8‑2‑1987 and then by registered post on the same date. The registered letter, no doubt, was despatched on 8‑2‑1987 but it was delivered according to A.D. receipt on 10‑2‑87. There is no document to show when the telegram was received by the respondent. A reply to the telegram was sent to the petitioners, which is dated 9‑2‑1987. In Annexure‑H it is said that duties were not given to the petitioners on 8‑2‑1987 and 9‑2‑1987. Since the service of stay order on 8‑2‑87 does not stand established on 8‑9‑87 from the document brought on the record, it does not appear that any contempt has been committed. The direction was not, to give duty but was not to act upon the transfer order. Since the petitioners were not allowed to work on 8‑2‑87, it is clear that the order of transfer had been acted upon on the said date before the stay order was issued.

2. The other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that by the previous order of 1983 the learned lower Court had directed that the petitioners be treated as regular employees but in the transfer order they have been mentioned as casual employees and thus the order of the learned Labour Court of 1983, which was confirmed in appeal by this Tribunal has been violated. The order of 1983 display that there was no express direction not to treat the petitioners as casual workers, it, therefore, cannot be said that by describing the petitioners as casual employees in the transfer order the order of learned lower Court of 1983 has been violated with criminal intention.

3. As a result the contempt petition is rejected.

A. E./287/Lb.P Petition rejected.