1989 PLP 352 (PLC)

H.R. Haider for Petitioners. Date of hearing: 2nd September, 1.987. This is a revision reporting that the order dated 29‑8‑1987 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.6, Rawalpindi, whereby the application of the petitioners for injunction was rejected is wrong and improper. The facts of the case arc that Ch. Mohammad Afzal (petitioner No. 2) was President, Raja Zahid Sultan (petitioner No. 1) was General Secretary of Habib Bank Limited Staff Union for the year 1986‑

87. On 28‑7‑1987 elections for the year 1987‑88 are alleged by the respondents to have been held in which respondents Nos. 1 to 14 arc alleged to have been elected as office‑holders. The papers were sent to the Registrar who accorded the approval. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners before the learned lower Court. They applied for injunction for restraining the respondents Nos. I to 14 from acting as office holders of the Union till the decision of the petition. The said petition has been dismissed rejecting the plea of the petitioners that Ch. Ashiq Hussain, Mirza Arshad Mahmood and Amir Afzal who are alleged to have been elected as President, General Secretary and Cashier respectively were not present in the meeting and that prima facie notices of the election were served upon the petitioners.

3. So far as the first objection is concerned the learned counsel for the petitioners has made reference to Annexures I/l, 1/2 and 1/3 and has argued that Muhammad Ashiq was at Islamabad from 27‑7‑1987 to 30‑7‑1987 and attended N.I.B. course. I/1 is a bill of Park Hotel, Rawalpindi dated 30‑7‑1987. But in this document period of stay at the hotel is not given, therefore, this document does not advance the case of the petitioners. I/2 shows that Ch. Ashiq Hussain left Jhelum on 24‑7‑1987 and reached Islamabad on the same day at 3‑00 P.m. He left Islamabad on 30‑7‑1987 at 4.00 p. m. and reached Jhelum on the same day at 7.0Ci p.m. He claimed Rs. 1,350 as hotel rent for six days. No final opinion can be expressed in this respect, but possibility cannot be excluded that on 27‑7_1987 when the meeting is alleged to have been held Ch. Ashiq Hussain may have come to Jhelum for attending the meeting and since the room had been booked upto 30‑7‑1987, therefore, rent for all the six days had to be paid and may have been actually paid, 1/3 is the‑copy of the attendance register where a notice is given in the column from 25‑7‑1987 to 30‑7‑1987 that Ch. Ashiq Hussain had gone to Islamabad to attend the N.I.B. course. The note is not signed by any authority although it appears that the page on 'which attendance is recorded bears the signatures of Ch. Ashiq Hussain. Possibility cannot be excluded that although Ch. Ashiq Hussain had gone to Islamabad but he may have come back to Jhelum to attend the meeting and since he had left on 25‑7‑1987 to remain at Islamabad upto 30‑7-1987, therefore, the note mentioned above may have been given against the said dates. After recording evidence the learned lower Court has to record final finding on the point. So far as the second question is concerned learned counsel for the petitioners has made reference to Annexure `H' and has argued that the letter is addressed to the President of Employees Union whereas Ch. Muhammad Afzal was the President of the Staff Union. The number of registered letter given on Annexure `H' is

815. It has been argued that in election proceedings copy of which is Annexure `A', number of registered letter is given as 815 and

816. No doubt, in the proceedings the number of registered letter can read as 815 but it cannot be said that certainly the number is so. Possibility cannot be excluded that the number was 817 and a dash was added to digit `7' on the top to read the digit as `5'. The color of the dash appears to be different from the color of the remaining portion of digit

5. Anyhow, no final opinion can be expressed at this stage.

4. The learned lower Court has rightly observed that since the claim of the respondents is that they have been elected as President and General Secretary balance of convenience goes in their favour and does not go in favour of the petitioners. If till the decision of the main petition, the respondents act as office holders, no harm can be done. It does not appear that by the refusal of the stay order any irreparable loss can be suffered by the petitioners. So, the petition for interim stay has been rightly rejected. However, if the petitioners at an stage think that they have improved their case and have made out a good case for injunction, they may again apply to the learned lower Court for the same.

5. As.3 result the revision is dismissed in limine. A.E./412/Lb.P Revision dismissed