1989 PLP 757 (PLC(CS))

Revision No. OSA‑334 of 1988, decided on 8th June, 1988. ‑‑‑Ss. 10 & 38(3‑a)‑‑Change of office‑bearers of Trade Union‑‑Adinterim stay order‑‑Resignation of office‑bearers allegedly obtained by fraud‑‑Plea that meeting of Federation was called to consider whether appeal brought before National Industrial Relations Commission by the Federation be pursued or withdrawn and during the meeting, General Secretary of Federation received signatures of office‑bearers on blank paper to record proceedings afterward but on said paper he forged a decision that resignations of office‑bearers had been accepted‑‑Registrar, on basis of such paper, discontinuing signatory office -bearers‑‑Order of Registrar challenged m appeal before Labour Court with application for adinterim stay restraining new office‑bearers from acting as such‑ Agenda of meeting on record before Labour Court bearing signatures of ousted office‑bearers also showed that meeting was held to consider whether office bearers may sever their connection with the Federation‑‑Order of Labour Court in refusing adinterim injunction, in circumstances, hell did not appear to be wrong or without jurisdiction so as to be interfered with in revision by Appellate Tribunal‑‑Prayer that Labour Court be directed to decide appeal within ten days also rejected‑‑Such request, could be made to Labour Court for consideration on merit keeping in view other pending cases. H.R. Haider for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 6th June, 1988. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 14‑5‑1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.1, Lahore, whereby the application for interim stay has been dismissed, is wrong and improper.

2. The facts are that a meeting of the Punjab Irrigation Employees Welfare Federation was called to be held on 23‑8‑1987, wherein the house made the resolution. The case of the petitioner is that meeting was held to consider whether the appeal brought in the National Industrial Relations Commission on behalf of the abovementioned Federation be pursued or withdrawn and that during the meeting respondent No. 2 received the signatures of the members who had attended on blank papers to record the; proceedings of the meeting and on the said papers forged a decision to the effect that the resignations of the office‑holders had been accepted. The papers were sent to the Registrar for the discontinuation of the office‑holders of the Federation on the basis of the said resignations. The petitioner Khushi Muhammad in the capacity of President of the Federation further called a meeting and is alleged to have passed no confidence vote against Muhammad Ilyas Khokhar, respondent No. 2 and sent papers to the Registrar for approval. The order of the Registrar has been challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the learned lower Court and applied for adinterim stay for restraining the new office‑holders from acting as such. The petition has been dismissed. The learned lower Court among other reasons has observed that the agenda for the meeting held on 23‑8‑1987 was bearing the signatures of the petitioner as well as respondent: No. 2 and that the said agenda showed that the meeting was to be held to consider whether the office‑holders may sever their connection with the Federation. The learned lower Court has to record finding on the merits of the case but for the refusal of the stay it is sufficient that the agenda which purports to bear the signatures of the petitioner also was not to the effect that whether the appeal pending before the National Industrial Relations Commission be withdrawn or not but was for the consideration of the point whether the office‑holders should sever their connection from the Federation. In these circumstances, the order of the learned lower Court refusing the injunction prayed for does not appear to be wrong or without jurisdiction.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly requested that if the revision is dismissed, direction may be issued to the learned lower Court to decide the appeal within ten days. This request too cannot be accepted, because the present case is fresh whereas many old cases may be pending in the learned lower Court. Such a request may be made to the learned lower Court and it will be upto the said Court to consider the request and to accept or reject the same.

4. As upshot of the observations made above, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine. A.E./546/Lb. P Revision dismissed.