PAKISTAN RAILWAYS Versus LATIFUR REHMAN PIRZADA

The revision captioned above reports that the order dated 24-11-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore whereby stay application of the respondents was accepted is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

2. The facts of the case are that in the beginning the respondents were under the control of the Head Office, at Lahore. The seniority was fixed accordingly. In 1976 the control was decentralized and the Shunters and Firemen including some other categories were placed under the Divisional Offices resulting in the re-fixation of the seniority in their respective divisions. Now again the control has been centralized and the respondents have again come under the Headquarters Office. The respondents feeling that they would be adversly affected in the matter of seniority and promotions have brought the grievance petition and applied for the maintenance of status quo till the decision of their main petition. The learned lower Court has found that all the three conditions necessary for issuing a stay order namely that there should be a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience should go in favour of the person asking for the stay .and that he may be likely to suffer irreparable injury by the refusal of the stay order are present in the present case. For holding that the respondents have a prima facie case the learned lower Court= has given reason that the centralization is contrary to a settlement reached between the parties. No copy of the settlement is on the record nor the respondents have placed before me any such document. Needless to say that section 25-A is attractive only if there is violation of any law, settlement or award. If in reality by centralizing services the provisions of any settlement have been violated the presence of the settlement is necessary on the record to enable the Court to reach at a correct decision. In paragraph No.3 of the order the learned lower Court has expressed:-

"Besides, the petitioners' group was described as diminishing cadre in an agreement between the parties during the pendency of a writ petition in the Lahore High Court, Lahore."

Again no such agreement is on the record. Unless such an agreement is perused it cannot be said whether it amounts to a settlement as defined in section 2(xxiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. If at all there was any settlement or agreement before the learned lower Court it has not been discussed how the said settlement stands violated by centralizing the services. In these circumstances, the stay order issued by the learned lower Court is not maintainable.

3. As a result the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order the learned lower Court is directed to re-decide the stay application after any agreement/ settlement or law is shown to the Court to show that the respondents have a, prima facie case. If the learned lower Court accepts the stay application it will also examine how by the refusal of the stay order the respondents would suffer) some irreparable injury.

A.E./521/Lb.P ????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision accepted.