1991 PLP 269 (PLC)

By this Revision Application it is prayed that this Tribunal in exercise of its Suo Motu Revisional Jurisdiction under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 may examine the correctness, propriety and legality of the order dated 14-5-1990, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Fifth Sindh Labour Court, Karachi.

2. The admitted facts appear to be that the election of the office- bearers of the Habib Bank Officers Welfare Association was held on 5-7-1987 when amongst other office-bearers, respondents Nos.3 and 5 before the learned Labour Court, were elected as President and Finance Secretary of the Association. In the general body meeting held on 7-3-1990 certain resolution was allegedly passed by the general body whereby the office-bearers elected in 1987 were allowed to continue as office-bearers for two more years. In the same meeting the constitution of the association is also alleged to have been amended whereby the officers holding the rank of Vice-President were also allowed to be made members of the association. The amendment in the constitution as well as the resolution continuing the previous officer-bearers for more two years has been notified to the Registrar under section 3(4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 which are still pending before the Registrar for his acceptance or rejection under section 8(5) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 as dispute had been raised with respect to the aforesaid resolutions before the learned Labour Court and the parties raising the disputes have so informed the Registrar.

3. The respondents Nos.l to 3 in this Revision Application have raised the dispute requesting the learned Labour Court for direction to hold the election under the supervision of the Registrar which dispute is still pending before the learned Labour Court. The applicant before the learned Labour Court moved an application under Order 39 Rule 2 before the learned Labour Court praying inter alia that the respondents Nos. 3 to 5 be restrained from operating the account of the association. The learned Labour Court ordered the issuance of notice to the respondents, which are 19 in numbers. The Welfare Association was not as such a party before the learned Labour Court. It appears that all respondents were not served though respondents Nos.3 and 5 were served and after hearing the applicants and respondents Nos.3 and 5, the learned Labour Court passed the impugned interim order whereby pending the decision of stay application the respondents Nos.3 and 5 were restrained from operating the accounts.

4. I have heard Mr. M.L. Shahani, learned Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Ali Amjad, learned Advocate for the respondents Nos. 1 and

3. The respondent No.2 has not been served but admittedly he was applicant before the learned Labour Court alongwith respondents Nos.l and 3 and was represented by Mr. Ali Amjad, who is now representing the respondents Nos.l and

3. Respondents Nos.4 and 5 are absent though served. I have also gone through the relevant documents produced by the parties.

5. Mr. M.L. Shahani has raised two objections, firstly that the funds of the association, which is a body corporate have been freezed though the association was not a party before 'the learned Labour Court. Under Article 6 of the constitution of the Association, the funds could be operated jointly by the Secretary General and Secretary Finance or by the President and Finance Secretary. The General Secretary is respondent No.4 before the learned Labour Court, who was not served when the impugned order was passed. He alone under the constitution cannot operate the funds.

6. Second contention of Mr. M.L. Shahani is that in the dispute mandatory injunction is not prayed and as such no interim injunction could have been passed.

7. Mr. Ali Amjad contends, that there was dispute over the election of office-bearers and the order was passed by the learned Labour Court in the interest of Association so that its funds may not be squandered by the office-?bearers, whose, very existence is under dispute. He concedes that under the relevant law it is not necessary for the Registrar to notify the acceptance of the change of office-bearers or change in the constitution, but under subsection (5) he could refuse such change against which order appeal could lie. He has also relied upon a decision of Indian High Court, reported in 1973 F.L.R.

107. In that case, the contention was that as the jurisdiction of the Industrial Court was merely declaratory, in such declaratory proceedings no interim injunction could be passed. It was held by the learned Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, that the well established principle has been recognized that a regularly established Tribunal has the authority to stay the proceedings by the subordinate authorities in order to prevent irreparable mischief during the pendency of the proceedings before it. Mr. Ali Amjad further submitted, that question of jurisdiction of the learned Labour Court has been raised and heard by the learned Labour Court and is fixed for orders. Under the circumstances, I need not discuss this aspect of the contention.

8. However, the fact remains that Association whose funds have been indirectly frozen and who have moved this application before this Tribunal was not a party before the learned Labour Court, and all the respondents especially respondent No.4 who was also empowered to operate the accounts had not been served, when the impugned order was passed. In my opinion the impugned order is premature and is not sustainable, and is set aside.

9. However, the anxiety of the respondents is that the funds of Association are not squandered away. Admittedly the funds 'of the Association constitute more than Rs.l Lac. Under the circumstances, it is ordered that till the stay application is decided by the learned Labour Court the funds of the Association should not be operated for an amount of more than Rs.1,000 at one time and for more than twice a week without the permission of the learned Labour Court. Even for the amount so operated the accounts should be filed before the learned Labour Court. This order restricting the operation of account will stand vacated, if the learned Labour Court holds that it has no jurisdiction. In case the learned Labour Court holds that it has jurisdiction the respondents Nos.l to 3 are directed to join the Association as party before the learned Labour Court. The learned Labour Court is directed to dispose of the stay application within two months. Mr: Ali Amjad, however, concedes that if any member of the Association dies or falls sick and if any amount is payable under the constitution to such member or his family, such amount may be withdrawn from the accounts without any restriction but the accounts should be filed in the learned Labour Court.

10. The Revision Application is disposed of in the above terms. M.Y.H./1699/Lb.S ????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision disposed of.