This is a revision reporting that the stay order dated 8-4-1989 issued by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 2, Lahore is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The facts are that Altaf Hussain, respondent No, 4, who was working as Group Inspector, brought a grievance petition to the effect that he was senior to the petitioner and thus the latter was not entitled to be promoted. During the pendency of the grievance petition respondent No, 4 was demoted and the petitioner was promoted as Group Inspector on 3-4-1989. The learned lower Court issued the stay order suspending the said order till the disposal of the main grievance petition. No stay order was obtained from the learned lower Court at the time of bringing the grievance petition by the respondent No, 4 to the effect that till the decision of the main petition he be not reverted and the petitioner not promoted. In the absence of the stay order the order of promotion of the petitioner was justified, if otherwise he was senior to respondent No,
4. Since respondent No, 4 stands reverted and the petitioner promoted, prima facie the main petition of respondent No, 4 became infructuous. By the demotion of respondent No, 4 and the promotion of the petitioner, the Railway Authorities decided wrongly or rightly the question of seniority considering the petitioner as senior. In these circumstances, respondent No, 4 should have brought a fresh petition under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1%9 challenging his demotion and the promotion of the petitioner. I do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for respondents Nos, 1 to 3 that the dispute with regard to the seniority inter se the petitioner and respondent No, 4 will be decided in the present grievance petition. As mentioned above, the Railway Authorities have already decided the question of seniority and if respondent No, 4 thinks that the approach of the employer is wrong, he can succeed only if he successfully challenges that decision and the order of his demotion. In these circumstances, respondent No, 4 had no prima facie case and the stay order could not be issued.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned stay order, the application of respondent No, 4 for the issuance of stay order is disallowed.