' SYED AKHTAR NAQI NAQVI, MEMBER---The petitioners have filed the petition under section 49(4)(e) of the I.R.O., 2002 in which they have contended that they are employed in the Bank of Punjab, Lahore, M. Altaf petitioner is employed as Messenger and presently posted at Joharabad, M. Ashraf petitioner employed as Messenger and posted in Jinnah Road Branch Rawalpindi while M. Iqbal petitioner employed as Driver and posted at Regional Office Faisalabad and by nature of their duties they fall under the definition of workmen as given in the I.R.O., 2002. It was further contended that the workers employed in Bank of Punjab formed a trade union on 27-6-2004 under the name and style of "Bank of Punjab Workers Union" which applied for its registration on 30-6-2004 to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Lahore and along with the application a list of its office-bearers was also submitted while the respondent-management was informed about the formation of this union and about the names of the office-bearers of the union which was sent through registered post to the respondents. The Registrar of Trade Unions disposed of the said application vide order dated 12-7- 2004 on account of a technical defect. As a result, the said union applied for registration and resubmitted the application on 12-7-2004 and the union again notified the names of members and office-bearers to the respondents through registered post. The Registrar again raised two objections which were removed by the union as a result of which he appointed an inquiry officer who conducted the inquiry on 26-7-2004 but no decision has so far been made upon the application.
2. The petitioners contended that the respondents started mass victimization of the office-bearers and members of the union on coming to know about the formation of the union and by means of ante dated transfer orders, 10 office-bearers and active members were sent to far-flung areas. In this way the respondents tried to wreck the union during the process of its registration and in identical manner two officers bearers of the union namely Munawar Shah President and M. Ishfaq Member Executive were dismissed by ante dated orders and thus out of sixteen, twelve office- bearers and members of the union were victimized on account of their lawful trade union activities.
It was further contended that during the pendency of application for registration of the union the respondents passed further dismissal orders dated 17-7-2004 in respect of Zameer Hussain Vice President, Tariq Ali General Secretary, M. Hafeez Joint Secretary and some others and thus dismissed 9 office-bearers and 3 members of the union out of total 16 leaving the petitioners who are also under threat of dire consequences while one Saeed Ahmad has been won over by the employers. The petitioners contended that they are low paid employees and they apprehend similar action at the hands of the respondents against them, although there is no complaint and no charge-sheet has been issued to them, hence this petition along with which another application under Regulation, 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations, 1973 has also been filed for restraining the respondents from committing any act of unfair labour practice and from dismissing, transferring or otherwise punishing the petitioners till the final disposal of this petition.
3. The respondents contested both the applications inter alia on the grounds that this petition is not competent since the Registrar of Trade Union has dismissed the application for registration of the union vide order dated 4-8-2004 against which an appeal has also been filed in the PLC No,1, and the instant proceedings are parallel to the Labour Court Proceedings, hence the same should not be allowed to continue; that for the same relief the petitioners approached the PLC No,1 earlier where their application under section 10 of the I.R.O. 2002 was dismissed and the order was never assailed whereas on the same grievance this petition has been filed, and that the petitioners are not office-bearers of the alleged unregistered trade unions hence they have no right to file such a petition. On merits it was averred that the petitioners are misusing the injunction order and are not reporting to duty claiming that with the grant of injunction order they are not legally required to report for duty. The allegations contained in the grievance petition were denied in toto by the respondents who also filed an application for vacation of the ad-interim stay order on the same grounds. Both the applications for grant of interim stay and for vacation of the stay shall be disposed of by means of this single order. I heard arguments addressed at the bar and perused record.
4. So far as the legal proposition is concerned, admittedly the union formed by the petitioners and their other colleagues has not been registered so far as; once the application of this union for registration has been dismissed by the RTU vide order dated 12-7-2004 on a technical ground that the application was filed under the Provisions of the repealed law I.R.O., 1969. The second application for registration is pending and inquiry is being held therein. Vide the list of the office- bearers mentioned in form-A of the schedule of office-bearers and the application addressed to the respondents dated 30-6-2004 vide Annex-C the petitioners are not shown as the office- bearers of said union. If any action has been taken against the office-bearers, they are at liberty to move the concerned forum under the concerned provisions of law for a proper action but for purpose of the disposal of this petition, the petitioners have no prima facie case on two grounds, firstly that they are not the office-bearers who have been given protection under section 10 of the I.R.O., and secondly that the union has not been registered so far. So far as the balance of convenience is concerned, there would be no question in the absence of prima facie case. On the contrary when alternate remedy is available to the petitioners, the issuance of a stay order would encourage in the other workers a feeling of possible indiscipline while the petitioners can seek their redress under section 10 of the I.R.O., 2002 from the Labour Court where their appeal is pending. On account of the same ground the petitioners would not suffer from any irreparable loss. I would refrain myself from touching the merits of the case but for the purpose of disposal of this application it would be worth-mentioning that the union of the petitioners was formed on 30-6- 2004 and it was not reported to the respondents that on 29-6-2004 Munawwar Hussain Shah Driver/President of the union was removed from service and there was a serious allegation against him that he caused a serious accident while M. Ishfaq Executive Member was dismissed from service on ground of committing theft. There is no evidence that the respondents were in the know of the proposed action of the petitioners on 29-6-2004 that the latter are forming a union on 30-6- 2004. Above all since alternate remedy which is an appropriate remedy is available to the petitioners before the Labour Court or the RTU, there is no justification for granting stay in this application.
5. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merits in the application for interim stay, hence the same is dismissed.