1986 PLP 87 (PLC)

(2) Whether the petition was not tenable as no prior notice under section 25‑A of I.R.O. was served as required by law? (O.P.D.) (3) Whether the petition was untenable in view of section 15 of I.R.O.? (O.P.D.) (4) Whether the employees Union of the Allied Bank was not competent to move this petition before the Labour Court? (O.P.P.) (5) Whether Executive Vice‑President, Personnel Division, Karachi of Allied Bank was necessary party in the petition? (O.P.D.) (6) Whether the petition is liable to rejection for non‑compliance of provisions of sections 26 to 34‑A of I.R.O.? (O.P.D.) (iv) The learned Labour Court, Muzaffarabad decided issues Nos. 1, 4 and 5 separately but did not decide issues Nos. 2, 3 and

6. The learned Court below has opined that these three issues would be taken up after the crucial issue No. 1 regarding the jurisdiction is decided but when it decided issue No. 1, it perhaps forgot to decide other issues.

3. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Rashid‑ul‑Haq Qazi, Advocate, has vehemently argued that the crucial issue about the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was decided and, therefore, it was necessary for the Labour Court Muzaffarabad to decide the issues Nos. 2, 3 and 6 as well. The issue No. 1 was decided against the Allied Bank of Pakistan as the learned Labour Court held that the Labour Court had the jurisdiction to entertain the petition and decide it.

4. The General Secretary of the Union has appeared before this Court on behalf of the Employees Union, the respondents. The Employees Union was contacted by me on telephone because tomorrow we are going to have the Summer Vacation and I wanted to decide this case expeditiously.

5. Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, the learned counsel for the respondents, has appeared and argued that there is no legal error or flaw in the impugned order which should not be disturbed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the Labour Court's record carefully.

7. It is regrettable that the learned Labour Court, Muzaffarabad has only decided three preliminary issues out of six preliminary issues framed by the Court. Under law, all the six preliminary issues should have been decided together. I have failed to understand that when the crucial issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Labour Court was decided in affirmative, why other three issues namely 2, 3 and 6 were not decided? The learned counsel for the respondents, Raja Muhammad Hanif Khan, has argued that a stay order should be issued against the Bank Authorities so that they should not be able to victimize the office‑bearers or the members of the Executive of the Labour Union during the pendency of the application before the Labour Court. An ad interim stay order was issued in favour of the Employees Union but when the objections were made against the issuance of the stay order, no fresh order was passed. Under law, the learned Labour Court should have decided the application for stay order hearing both the parties one way or the other and then proceeded to decide the case within the period stipulated by the Ordinance.

8. After applying my mind carefully to the facts of the case, I am inclined to remand this case back to Labour Court, Muzaffarabad to decide all the preliminary issues especially the issues Nos. 2, 3 and 6 which have been left undecided. Therefore, this appeal is accepted and the case is remanded back to the learned Labour Court, Muzaffarabad to decide all the preliminary issues framed by it afresh and then decide the whole case within the time allowed by the Ordinance.

9. As regards the stay order, although no appeal is pending before this Court, but both the learned counsel for the parties have requested this Court to pass an ad interim order so that both the parties should be saved from mischief. Therefore, I direct the Bank Authorities of the Allied Bank of Paksitan, Muzaffarabad not to transfer the office bearers of the Union, whose list has been supplied to me during the pendency of the case before the Labour Court. However, if some office?holder creates undesirable hurdles or spokes for the Bank Authorities, the Bank Authorities shall be free to contact the Labour Court, and after satisfying the said Court, be free to transfer the miscreant office?holders or members of the Executive. Moreover, the office‑holders of the Union shall not raise any slogans or indulge in any undesirable activity disturbing the atmosphere or smooth working of the Bank. This interim order shall stand till the Labour Court decides the application for stay order after hearing both the parties, in the light of my ruling reported in 1985 P L C 706.

10. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that most of the office‑bearers of the Union are drawing more than Rs:- 600 as their salary and, therefore, they do not fall within the definition of the term "worker" or "workman" as defined in section 2 (28)(b) of the Ordinance. This is a matter which is to be decided by the Labour Court, Muzaffarabad and, therefore, I would not like to express my opinion in this respect at this stage. A.E????? Case remanded