1992 PLP 699 (PLC(CS))

Latif Saghar for Applicant. Izhar Alam Farooqui for Respondents. Date of hearing: 30th April, 1991. This suo motu revision application under section 38(3-a) of I.R.O., 1969, invokes revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal with the prayer to examine the correctness, propriety and legality of the order, dated 19-8-1989, passed by learned Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court No.5, at Karachi in Application No.9 of 1989, whereby stay application of the applicant was dismissed.

2. I have heard Mr. Mohammad Latif Saghar, learned Advocate for the applicant union and Mr. Izhar Alam Farooqui, learned counsel for the respondents and have also gone through the relevant documents produced alongwith the Revision Application.

3. The applicant claimed that in an agreement arrived at between the C.BA. Union and the respondents on 9-6-1988 it was agreed that one Government Vehicle would be handed over to the applicant for the use of union activities. The respondents challenged the existence of such agreement and asked the applicant to return the vehicle therefore the applicant filed Application under section 34 of I.R.O., 1969, before the learned Labour Court and moved for Interim Order restraining the respondents from taking away the vehicle during the pendency of application before the learned Labour Court.

4. Before learned Labour Court the original agreement was not produced but only photostat copy was produced. The learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that signatures thereupon were forged. This view was held by learned Labour Court without examining any evidence. The applicants have produced the original of photostat copy of the agreement in this Tribunal under which the respondents have agreed to hand over the vehicle mentioned therein to the applicants for the use of union activities on the conditions mentioned in the agreement. The production of original document is primary A proof of the document. The question as to whether it is forged or not is question of fact which can be arrived at after the alleged signatories of the agreement are examined who either admit or deny signatures on the document. Parties who produce forged document are liable to be prosecuted. It is, therefore, not correct to hold that document is forged without recording evidence.

5. Admittedly the possession of vehicle is with the applicant. This fact in I a way prima facie appears to lend support to the contention of the applicant with regard to existence of said agreement. In view of the above discussion I set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court and order the issuance of Interim Order restraining the respondents from dispossessing the applicant of the vehicle in question till the decision of the application under section 34 of I.R.O., 1969, pending before the learned Labour Court. The matter has become very old. The learned Labour Court is directed to dispose of it as early as possible unprejudiced by observations made in this order. M.Y.H./1912/Lb.S Application dismissed.