1989 PLP 901 (PLC(CS))
PRESIDENT AND GENERAL SECRETARY, LAHORE ZOO MAZDOOR UNION (Regd.) Versus CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS and 2 others
| Citation | 1989 PLP 901 (PLC(CS)) |
| Forum / Court | Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal |
| Parties | PRESIDENT AND GENERAL SECRETARY, LAHORE ZOO MAZDOOR UNION (Regd.) Versus CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS and 2 others |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 901 (PLC(CS))?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 901 (PLC(CS))?
The case was heard and decided by the Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan Lodhi, Appellate Tribunal.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 901 (PLC(CS)) (PRESIDENT AND GENERAL SECRETARY, LAHORE ZOO MAZDOOR UNION (Regd.) Versus CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- H.R. Haider for Petitioner.
- Sh. Muhammad War for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Date of hearing: 16th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑‑O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), Ss.25‑A & 38(3‑a)‑‑Ad interim stay order‑‑Neither in the ad interim stay order nor in the order confirming ad interim stay order, issued in favour of employer, it was mentioned that employer had a prima facie case, balance of convenience in its favour and irreparable loss was likely to be suffered by it‑‑Office holders of Union were prevented from acting as such by said stay order‑‑Union was registered one and its office holders had a vested right to work for benefit of workers‑‑Held, there was no justification for Labour Court to issue stay order‑ Order of Labour Court set aside and said Court , was directed to re‑decide application of employer for issuance of stay order in view of observations made by Appellate Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
This is a revision reporting that the order dated 4‑6‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore confirming the ad interim stay order is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. Neither in the ad interim stay order nor in the order dated 4‑6‑1988 whereby ad interim order was confirmed and the application of the petitioner for vacation of the stay order was rejected, it is discussed if the respondents had a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience was in their favour and that irreparable loss was likely to be suffered by them. The petitioner union was registered by the Registrar on 17‑11‑1986 and the said order has been challenged by the respondents under section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned lower Court has treated the said petition as one brought under section 34 of the abovementioned Ordinance. The stay order prayed for was that the office‑holders be prevented from acting as such till the decision of the main petition. Since the petitioner union stands registered, its office‑holders have a vested right to work for the benefits of the workers and till the union is registered, they are entitled to function as such. In the absence of finding that the balance of convenience goes in favour of the respondent and that the respondents are likely to suffer from irreparable injury if the office‑holders of the union continue functioning, there could be no justification to issue stay order.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court it is directed that the application for the issuance of stay order be re-decided in the light of the observations made above. M.Y.H./565/Lb. P Petition accepted.