1988 PLC(CS) 711

GENERAL SECRETARY, HABIB BANK WORKERS FRONT NAROWAL ZONE Versus HABIB BANK WORKERS UNION SIALKOT

Citation1988 PLC(CS) 711

CourtPunjab Labour Appellate Tribunal

Case No.Revision Petition No.SL‑34 of 1988

Date1988-03-14

Judge(s)Sardar Muhammad Abdul Ghafoor Khan hodhi, Appellate Tribunal

ResultRevision accepted

This is a revision reporting that the order dated 18‑1‑1988 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.7, Gujranwala whereby issuance of C. B. A. certificate in favour of petitioner union has been stayed is reported to be without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.

2. The facts are that respondent No.l union brought an application with the name and style of Habib Bank Limited Workers Union, Daska, Narowal and Sialkot Zones under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 challenging the registration of the petitioner union. The learned lower Court has entertained the petition and has accepted the petition of respondent No.l union for injunction. The registration certificate of respondent No.l union has been perused which shows that Habib Bank Limited Workers Union Sialkot District has been registered and not the Habib Bank Ltd. Workers Union Daska, Narowal and Sialkot Zones. Since no certified union brought application under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 it cannot be said that respondent No.l union has any arguable case. In these circumstances the stay order has been wrongly issued by the learned lower Court. Learned counsel for respondent No.l union has tried to argue that since according to the registration certificate the name and style of respondent No.l union is Habib Bank Ltd. Workers Union District Sialkot it includes all the Tehsils of District Sialkot including Daska and Narowal, the petition was competent. The position is not so. A union can come to the Court with that name and style for which it has been registered. If any union comes forward changing its name it cannot be said that a union which has been registered has come to the Court. The dispute between the‑parties is whether the petitioner union could be registered for Narowal Zone when respondent No.l union which is alleged to be for all the three Tehsils existed. This question could be examined only when some proper union with correct name and style and come to the Court.

3. As a result the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order the application for interim stay is dismissed.

A. E. /516/Lb.P Revision accepted.