1989 PLP 92 (PLC)

‑‑‑Ss. 8, 34 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Election of office‑bearers of union disputed‑‑Matter, pending before Labour Court‑‑Labour Court restraining rival groups from negotiating with employer till decision of appeal before it‑‑Order of Labour Court dismissing application of employer to restrain one group of office‑bearers from negotiating on charter of demands, held, would give no inconvenience or loss to employer‑‑Interference in revision refused. Salim Baig for Petitioner. Abdul Ghafoor Wattoo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th July, 1987. This is a revision reporting that the order date 26‑4‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore is wrong and improper.

2. The facts are that the respondents were the office‑bearers of the C.BA. union but they were removed by passing no‑confidence vote and other office bearers were elected and the matter was sent to the Registrar for approval who accorded the same. The respondents have gone to the learned Labour Court in appeal against the approval. The learned lower Court has suspended the approval vide its order dated 10‑1‑1987. After the approval was suspended by the learned Labour Court the respondents served upon the petitioner a charter of demands. Thereafter the other office‑bearers also served a different charter of demands upon the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application under section 34 of industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 to the learned lower Court contending that the executive body of the respondents was illegally constituted inasmuch as number of outsiders was more than 75 per cent as they have been removed from service. The persons removed from service have brought separate applications under section 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The petitioner in his application brought under section 34 made an application for interim stay to restrain the respondents from negotiating with the petitioner on the charter of their demands. The said application has been dismissed. The plea taken by the petitioner is that the other group of office‑bearers has served a charter of demands with the result that the petitioner has to negotiate with two sets of office‑holders. The stand of the petitioner is that the body whose members are respondents was illegally constituted and thus they cannot be negotiated. The other stands is that the suspension of the approval does not mean that the office holder ship of the respondents stand survived. At this stage, it cannot be said which set of office‑bearers would be declared as legal office‑holders and since both of them have served charter of demands and want to negotiate with the petitioner prima facie cases it would be inconvenient for the petitioner to negotiate with both of them. But there is another development in the case. The learned lower Court has restrained both the groups from negotiating with the petitioner till the decision of the appeal pending there. Since both the groups have been restrained from negotiating with the petitioner, no question of inconvenience or loss arises and in these circumstances the order of learned lower Court cannot be interfered with.

3. As a result, the revision fails and is dismissed. A.E./392/Lb. P Revision dismissed.