KHAN MUHAMMAD Versus WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through General

The two revisions captioned above report that the orders dated 29‑11‑1986 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala, whereby the applications of the petitioners for ad interim stay were dismissed, are wrong and improper.

2. The facts of the case are that some posts of senior store‑keepers had been upgraded from scale No.7 to scale No.12. Likewise, the posts of junior store‑keepers were upgraded from scale No.5 to scale No.11. The petitioners were working against the posts of seniors store‑keepers. They were not allowed scale No.12 on the ground that they were inefficient and were transferred to the posts of senior store‑keepers which had .not been upgraded and were kept in scale No.7. Admittedly, no store exists and no post of store‑keeper exists in scale No.7. Since there is no store, obviously there is no work there. For this reason the petitioners have been transferred as senior clerks. Their prayer is that till the decision of the cases, they should be kept on the posts of senior store‑keepers in scale No.7. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have argued that since there is no store and the post of store‑keeper, there is no justification to retain the petitioners against such a post and they have been rightly transferred to hold the post of senior clerks. For getting a stay order three conditions are to be fulfilled. It may be said that the petitioners have an arguable case since in, the rules it is not mentioned that for allowing scale No.12 efficiency of the persons, who are already holding the posts of senior store keepers in scale No.7, should be tested. Since there may be change in the performance of duties, it may be said that the balance of covenience goes in favour of the petitioners but they are not likely to suffer from such a loss which may not be calculated in terms of money. They are in the same scale and thus there is no reduction in the pay. If they succeed in their grievance petitions and are placed in scale No.12, they can recover the arrears and thus are not likely) to suffer from any loss. The learned lower Court, therefore, rightly dismissed the applications for ad interim stay.

3. As a result, the revisions are dismissed.

M. Y.H./282/Lb.P Petitions dismissed.