1. ' Heard the learned representative of the parties and perused the record. Perused the present application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 and also the application Under Order XXXIX, rule 4, C.P.C. And so also the affidavits of the parties filed thereto.
2. ' The applicant filed the petition under section 8(7) of the I.R.O., 1969 against the Association, its office-bearers and the Registrar of Trade Unions and also Joint Director Labour alleging therein, that the settlement entered into between the Association and the N.B.P. For Grades II and III Officers on 7-12-1980 was valid for two years and expired on 6-12-1983. At that time the petitioner was an office-bearer. Thereafter the election was to be held and in spite of the request by the petitioner requisitioning to hold fresh election. The respondent paid no heed to it. Consequently, he approached the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 but the respondents 4 to 8 paid no heed and claimed to have been allowed to carry on the work, by the General body. It may be mentioned here, that in view of the behaviour of the respondent 4 onwards, the petitioner resigned from office but continues to be a member. It is alleged that the respondents Nos. 2 and 3 have also issued a notice to the respondent No. 1 in respect of holding of elections but to no avail. It is also alleged by the petitioner that the respondents are not a legally constituted body hence they could not disburse the Union funds or legally do all acts as such. Which it has been doing after 6-12-1982 when the settlement expired. Hence this application that it be declared that the tenure of office of respondents Nos. 4 to 8 has expired and they cannot continue in office and discharge their functions as such and also to permanently restraining them from doing all acts which would amount to acts done in capacity as office-bearers. The petitioner further requests for directing the respondent No. 2 to hold the fresh elections of the association.
3. ' The respondents Nos. 2 and 3 appeared through their Assistant Director Labour whereas the remaining respondents through Mr. Malik M. Saeed.
4. ' I have carefully gone through the provisions of section 8(7) of the I.R.O., 1969. The plain reading of this section clearly shows that for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under section 8(7) of I.R.O., 1969, there must be an order under subsection (5) of section 8 of I.R.O., 1969.
5. Thus, in short, it indicates that there ought to be an appeal or application, when there is an order under Order V by the Registrar of the Unions rejecting the application. In the instant case before me, it appears that the Assistant Director has even issued a notice to the respondents for holding elections. This notice cannot be treated as an order rejecting the request of the petitioner. In fact the Labour Department has in a way taken action in the matter. There seems no presumptions that the application and/or the request of the petitioner has been rejected hence the matter seems to be premature and the petitioner has no prima facie case at this stage.
6. ' Since, the petitioner has no prima facie case, obviously, the balance of convenience does not lean on the side of the petitioner but on the side of the respondents. Mr. Ali Anwar Ghanghro Representative of the Registrar of Trade Unions has frankly said that he has nothing to say in the matter nor his department is affected in either way.
7. ' As already mentioned the balance of convenience is on the side of the respondents and it will be not only they who shall be inconvenienced but the members at general in case the injunction is maintained. Admittedly the petitioner will not suffer any material or irreparable injury. In such cases injunction cannot be maintained.
8. ' The great stress has been laid on the maintainability of the matter by both the sides. I am bent upon considering this point as well. And if the matter is not maintainable it is no use keeping in it on the record.
9. While discussing the maintainable of the matter, at the outset I have held that there is no order rejecting the request of the petitioner and the matter is premature hence not maintainable under section 8(7) of the I.R.O., 1969. 1 am, therefore, constrained to reject the petition under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. Since the petition has been rejected all orders passed by this Court are recalled.