1989 PLP 165 (PLC)

M.S.H QUARAISHI (CHAIRMAN).

This appeal is directed against an interlocutory order dated 13-8-1988 passed by a Single Bench whereby prohibitory direction were given against the appellants in a petition, ,moved under section 22-A (8) of the I.O.R. by Zafar Iqbal Bhatti respondent in this appeal bearing allegations of unfair labour practice against the H.B.F.C. Employees Union Punjab and its three office-bearers, who are all appellants herein.

2. The prohibitory order which was first passed on 28‑7‑1988 restrained the appellants from (i) pressurising the members of the Staff Union (of Zafar Iqbal Bhatti) to dissociate from and cease to be members of their union; (ii) obtaining affidavits by creating pressure; (iii) manoeuvring transfers in connivance with the management or otherwise victimizing the members of the Staff Union with regard to their employment; (iv) acting as office‑bearers of the employees union; (v) committing any other act of unfair labour practice; (vi) acting in detriment to the interests of Zafar lqbal Bhatti and his Staff Union; and (vii) collecting subscription of members of Staff Union. After hearing the parties, the learned Bench modified the above order to the extent that only the three office‑bearers of, the H.B.F.C. Employees Union, namely, (1) Zahid Hussain Chaudhry, Chairman, (2) Muhammad Saeed, General Secretary, and (3) S. Sajjad Haider, Vice‑Chairman, were restrained from acting as office‑bearers of their union. The rest of the prohibitory order was confirmed. Hence this appeal.

3. Before us the main challenge is to that part of the impugned order whereby the aforesaid three office‑bearers of the H.B.F.C. Employees Union (Appellants 1, 2, and 3) were placed under a restraint from functioning as such office‑bearers. Apparently, the H.B.F.C. Employees Union is a registered trade union and as such their office‑bearers, as long as they hold their office validly cannot be prevented from acting as such office‑bearers. The petition filed by Zafar lqbal Bhatti is on grounds of unfair labour practice and not of any defect in A their holding of office in the H.B.F.C. Employees Union. Therefore, unless a final determination has taken place, it would not be proper to stop its validly elected office‑bearers from discharging their normal legal functions.

4. On this view of the matter, the part of the impugned order whereby appellants Zahid Hussain Chaudhry, Muhammad Saeed and S. Sajjad Raider, have been restrained from acting as office‑bearers of H.B.F.C. Employees Union 8 is not tenable and is, accordingly, set aside. No other point having been pressed, the appeal is partly, allowed as above. A.E./139/N.I.R.C. Appeal partly allowed.