2018 PLP 48 (PLC)

ZAHOOR AHMED MENGAL, MEMBER.

This appeal is directed against the Order dated 13-02-2017 passed by the Presiding Officer, 1st Labour Court, Quetta, wherein the Petition under sections 50, 52(4) read with section 12 of BIRA, 2010 and application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. read with section 54 (3) of BIRA, 2010 filed by applicant/appellant was rejected.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is the President of P.W.D Employees Union Balochistan (CBA) which is established to safeguard the interests of the workers and to prevent hypocrisy, activities against the workers and in contrary the respondent No.1 Union having no interest about the welfare of the workers as he has entirely different interest from the workers of the Balochistan, therefore he registered fake Union with the similar name as of the applicant Trade Union i.e. C&W Employees Union to gain illegal and personal advantages. The respondent No.1 after giving registration to the respondent No.2 concealed this fact from approximately three months and lastly on 30-07-2016 disclosed it through press release. The petitioner when came to know about said act and approached the respondent No.1 after giving through an application dated 04-08-2016 with request to cancel the registration of the C&W Employees Union, because the registration awarded to the respondent No. 2 is in violation of provisions of BIRA, 2010. Further mentioned that it was great surprise to the appellant when he was succeeded to obtain the copy of list of members from the office of the respondent No. 1 as it shows the names of workers belongs to appellant's Trade Union and even mentioned the names of deceased and retired workers, as such appellant rushed-up to his members whose name were written in the list, but they denied the membership of C&W Employees Union Balochistan. Though the respondent No. 1 was duly intimated about the illegal registration through application, but the respondent No. 1 paid no heed and in hasty manner issued registration to the respondent No.

2. Being aggrieved, the appellant/applicant filed grievance application before the Labour Court-I Quetta.

3. The respondents contested the application by filing written statements.

4. The learned Trial Court after hearing parties passed the Order impugned herein dated 13-02-2017, whereby the application filed by the applicant/appellant was rejected. Being aggrieved from the order of Trial Court, the appellant/ applicant filed instant appeal.

5. Mr. Shahid Javed, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant agitated the impugned order herein and stated that the Trial Court illegally rejected the stay application of the appellant as the appellants succeeded to prove the three ingredient necessary for decision of stay application in their favour but the Trial Court has not considered the same and passed a non-speaking order against the available record of the case hence the same is liable to be set aside.

6. Contrary Mr. Abdul Zahir Kakar, Advocate learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 negated the contention of the appellant and urged that the Learned Trial court has passed a speaking order which is based in accordance to the record available before the Court.

7. I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. The appellant challenged the registration of the respondent No. 2's union on the ground that the respondent No. 1 wrongly registered the union of the respondent No. 2 on the base of bogus list of workers and respondent No. 2 is not the real representative of workers. The above assertion of the appellant cannot be presumed to be true unless leading of clear evidence.

8. To decide interim injunction application, it is not necessary to go in deep appreciation of evidence/ record, only tentative assessment is required to ascertain whether three ingredient for example Prima Facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss is there are not. The appellant before the Trial Court did not succeed to prove three necessary above mentioned ingredients to get order in their favour.

9. The Learned Trial Court rightly assessed the material submitted by the parties and came to a right conclusion. Furthermore, record of the case has not favoured the appellant to the extent of prima facie case, irreparable loss.

10. The appellant failed to point out any illegality or irregularity, misreading or non-reading in the order impugned herein therefore the order of the Learned Trial Court dated 13-02-2017 is upheld. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed.

11. The parties are left to bear their own cost.

12. The copy of Judgment along with original record of Trial Court be sent to Trial Court. Case after completion be consigned to record.

13. GIVEN under my hand and seal of the Court on 25th August, 2017. MQ/6/BLT Appeal dismissed.