' These are revisions challenging the orders dated 14-4-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 4, Faisalabad whereby the applications of the petitioners for ad interim stay have been rejected.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioners are Apprentices and vide order dated 17-8-1985 when some persons from the pool were taken as conductors the petitioners were posted as conductor in their scale, i,e, No,
2. The petitioners brought applications to the National Industrial Relations Commission on the criminal side as well as, making prayer for setting aside the order dated 5-1-1986/12-1-1986 whereby they were restored to the original position in scale No, 2 as apprentice. The stay orders are still in continuance and the petitions are still pending before the National Industrial Relations Commission. On account of stay order the petitioners are working as conductors in scale No,
2. The learned representative has argued that the petitioners intend to withdraw their petitions from the National Industrial Relations Commission, therefore, they have asked for stay order in their petitions brought under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Even if it be said that the National Industrial Relations Commission has jurisdiction on the civil side, the Labour Court and the National Industrial Relations Commission have concurrent jurisdiction and since the petitions on the civil side are pending before the National Industrial Relations Commission and stay order has been obtained, there is no occasion for the petitioners to ask for similar stay order from the Labour Court. The mere fact that the petitioners intend to withdraw their petitions from the National Industrial Relations Commission is not sufficient. The learned lower Court has discussed the question of limitation also, so far as the petitions of the petitioners under section 25-A Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 are concerned, but this is not the stage to say anything in this respect. The point may have been raised by the respondent and the learned lower Court has yet to decide it after allowing both the parties to produce evidence.
3. As a result, the revisions fail and are dismissed.