' The order, dated 30th January, 1984 whereby the stay application of the petitioner was dismissed is informed to have been wrongly passed. The prayer is that this Tribunal may exercise its suo motu revisional powers to set aside the impugned order.
2. The petitioner was transferred to Lahore vide order, dated 15th December, 1983 without getting permission from the Registrar with whom the application of the petitioner for the registration of the Union of which he is alleged to be the President, is alleged to be pending. Information of it is alleged to have been given to the respondents on 10th December, 1983 vide letter copy marked 'B. The copy of the application for registration of the Union is marked 'A'. These documents show that the petitioner has a prima facie case. Getting of permission from the Registrar is necessary according to section 8-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Balance of convenience also goes in favour of the petitioner and the Union. If transfer is not stayed, the petitioner will not be able to pursue the application for registration of the Union effectively. He shall have to go to Faisalabad to pursue the application. If on account of his transfer another President is elected, the petitioner will cease to remain as President and thus will suffer a loss that cannot be compensated in terms of money. He thus has a good case of stay.
3. As a result, the impugned order dismissing the stay application is set aside and implementation of the transfer order is stayed. If it has been implemented, its operation is suspended with a direction that the petitioner should be put back on duty at Faisalabad. This order will remain effective till the final decision of the main grievance petition pending before the learned lower Court.