' The order dated 25-3-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan whereby temporary injunction has been issued against the petitioner restraining it from implementing the order of reversion of the respondent, is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that scale of Mate and Baildar in Zila Council Sahiwal is the same, therefore, the respondent has not suffered any irreparable loss by the order of reversion. There are three conditions for issuing a stay order. One is that the person asking for it should have at least an arguable case; the second is that balance of convenience should go in his favour and the third is that he is likely to suffer loss which cannot be calculated in terms of money. Even if it be said that the respondent has an arguable case and balance of convenience goes in his favour, he is not likely to suffer from any irreparable injury by the refusal of the stay order, inasmuch as, by the reversion he remains in the same scale in which he was when he was Mate. The respondent has brought a certificate from Zila Council, Multan to the effect that scale of Mate is No,
2. The respondent is employed in Zila Council, Sahiwal and not in Zila Council, Multan, therefore, the certificate brought by him is not relevant to the case. The petitioner has placed on the record office copy of Schedule of Establishment, according to which Mate and Baildar have been shown in the same scale i,e,, 440-10-640. Since the respondent is not likely to suffer from irreparable injury, the learned lower Court wrongly issued the stay order.
3. As a result the revision is accepted and the impugned order is set aside.