1989 PLP 450 (PLC)

Commission; and (ii) that stay order having not been served upon petitioner, the petition vas competently filed and can be legitimately continued. In his submission stay and injunction' are synonymous.

5. Mr. Ali Ahmed seems to have conveniently ignored the fact that although, the orders are not binding on this Commission, the same are binding on the parties to the case in which the orders are passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal‑

6. The contention of Mr. Ali Ahmed, synonymity of `Stay' and `Injunction' is also devoid of substance. The stay order comes into effect the moment it is passed where as the order of injunction takes effect on service on the party concerned If an authority be needed reference may be had to Haji Khalil v. Jived Ahmed (1983 S C M R 869) wherein it was held. "Stay order takes effect from time it is passed, irrespective of fact whether or not it has been served on person concerned". Having disposed of the two preliminary objections of Mr. Ali Ahmed. Advocate, the next question for consideration would be the effect of the order of Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, on these proceedings.

8. Representative for the petitioner has not disputed genuineness of the copy of orders of the Labour Appellate Tribunal produced by the respondents. The respondents had applied to the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi for stay in the following terms: "That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to grant stay and direct the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad not to give effect to his order of registration of respondent No. 1 union and also directions be issued to respondent No. 1 union not to act as CBA till such time as the above appeal is decided by this Hon'ble Tribunal." On this application the learned Tribunal passed the following order: 6th July, 1988. Heard Mr. Mehmood Ghani. The order as prayed. Sd/‑ Appellate Tribunal

9. The contents of above application for stay show that it envisaged two orders of different nature. The first one was to have the effect of certificate of registration issued by Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad stayed; and the second one was in the nature of injunction restraining the petitioner from the acting as CBA. The Tribunal granted both the prayers.

10. It would thus appear that while the portion of order granting injunction would take effect from the date of service on the petitioner, the order of stay regarding certificate of registration issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions took effect as soon as it was passed. The petition was filed on 9‑7‑1988 when petitioner's certificate of registration was already under suspension. The petition was therefore incompetently filed and merits dismissal out right.

11. Mr. Ali Ahmed, thereupon contended that every registered Trade Union shall be body corporate by the name under which it is registered and shall be competent to sure or be sued by the said name as envisaged by section 14 of the I.R.O. Since this union is registered it can sue as such.

12. From the petition it appears that the union was formed on 11‑3‑1988. Thereafter, General Secretary of the Union applied for registration on 16‑3‑1988 before the Registrar of Trade Unions Hyderabad but sent written intimation of the formation of the union to the respondent on 4‑4‑1988. Immediately thereafter the incidents mentioned in the body of the petition are alleged to have taken place. It thus appears that the application filed by the General Secretary on 16‑3‑1988 was not only the application for registration of the union, but there being no other union in the establishment, it was also meant to be for registration C as CBA. There is no proof that union was registered otherwise. A union which is not registered or whose certificate of registration has been suspended, cannot sue as such union under section 14 of the I.R.O., 1969. For the reasons stated above the petition is dismissed as incompetent. A.E./136/NIRC Petition dismissed.