MUHAMMAD ANWAR SHAH Versus ADAM SUGAR MILLS LTD.

This is an appeal arising from the decision dated 9-12-1986 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.2, Lahore whereby the application for interim injunction moved by the appellant has been disallowed.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant was retired from service on the basis of new identity card, which he had obtained on account of the fact that he had lost the previous one. The appellant produced photo copy of the previous identity card to the respondent whereupon the order of retirement was re-called. The identity card issuing authority cancelled the previous identity card and the respondent thereupon again retired the appellant from service as according to the age given in the second identity card he had reached the age of superannuation. The appellant has challenged the said retirement order before the learned lower Court wherein he has applied for ad interim injunction from the refusal of which this appeal arises.

3. The authorities which issue the identity cards usually do not make any enquiry about the correctness or otherwise of the date of birth or age given by the person concerned, therefore, prima facie the identity cards have no sufficient evidentiary value so far as the age given therein is concerned. At present there is no evidence on the record that the identity card issuing authority had made any enquiry and decided that the age given in the second identity carte was correct and the one given in the previous one was wrong. Even otherwise, cases are to be decided on the evidence which is produced in the Court and not on the evidence which may have been recorded by some other authority. The representative appearing for the respondent has argued that according to settlement arrived at between the C.B.A. and the respondent that age is considered for the purpose of retirement which is given in the identity card. At present there is no settlement on the record, therefore, nothing can be said in this respect. The appellant, therefore, appears to have an arguable case.

4. It has been urged on behalf of the respondent that respondent to Order 16 of Standing Orders Ordinance the appellant could retain residential accommodation upto two months only and thus, he has no right. This is true but in cases where the employee appears to have a strong case on merits, stay order can be issued in view of 13 the hardship to he faced by the person for being thrown out of the residence. The inconvenience which will be faced by the appellant on account of being ejected from the quarter will be much more than the little inconvenience, which may be faced by the respondent deferring allotment of the residential accommodation to any other person.

5. The learned lower Court has observed that provisions of Order 39 of C.P.C. are not applicable, therefore, the Labour Court cannot issue temporary injunction. This is true that C.P. C. is not applicable but the Labour Courts can allow that interim relief which they are authorised to ultimately allow permanently. Needless to say the t Labour Courts have jurisdiction to set aside the order of retirement and put the employee back to the same position in which he was when the order of retirement was passed. But for the order of retirement, the appellant would have a right to continue to occupy the residential accommodation, thus, such a relief can be allowed to him till the decision of the main petition.

6. As a result the appeal is treated as a revision as no appeal lies and accepting the same the impugned order is set aside and the respondent is restrained from ejecting the appellant from residential accommodation till the decision of the main case. The learned lower Court will be at liberty to set aside the stay order if it is found that the appellant is abusing the same by delaying the disposal of the case. The learned lower Court is directed to expedite the final decision of the case.

M. Y. H./336/Lb,P

Petition accepted.