' This is a revision reporting that the order dated 4-2-1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 9, Multan is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The learned lower Court has vide the impugned order suspended the operation of the order whereby the respondent was fined Rs, One Lac and reverted as Assistant Inspector of Works.
Previously, the learned lower Court had dismissed the grievance petition, of the respondent brought under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 holding that he was an employer. The case was remanded for redecision of the point with the direction that if the learned lower Court found that application under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not competent it should consider whether the said petition could be treated as an application under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned lower Court has not yet given finding on the point. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner has been put to great inconvenience by suspending the order of punishment awarded to the respondent. So far as the first point is concerned, uptil now the learned lower Court has not been moved to decide the question of jurisdiction first, therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in this respect.
3. So far as the second point is concerned the balance of convenience goes in favour of the respondent because the amount of fine is considerable and even the deduction by instalments will put the respondent to great inconvenience. On the other hand if the deduction is deferred there will be no loss and inconvenience to the petitioner.
4. This part of the impugned order is also justified that the question of the status of the respondent can be decided after inviting evidence. The question involves the duties of the respondent which - tan be proved by the parties by producing evidence.
5. As a result the revision fails and is dismissed in limine.