' This is a revision reporting that the order dated 14-5-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore, whereby the application for interim stay has been dismissed, is wrong and improper.
2. The facts are that a meeting of the Punjab Irrigation Employees Welfare Federation was called to be held on 23-8-1987, wherein the house made the resolution. The case of the petitioner is that meeting was held to consider whether the appeal brought in the National Industrial Relations Commission on behalf of the abovementioned Federation be pursued or withdrawn and that during the meeting respondent No, 2 received the signatures of the members who had attended on blank papers to record the proceedings of the meeting afterwards and on the said papers forged a decision to the effect that the resignations of the office-holders had been accepted. The papers were sent to the Registrar for the discontinuation of the office-holders of the Federation on the basis of the said resignations. The petitioner Khushi Muhammad in the capacity of President of the Federation further called a meeting and is alleged to have passed no confidence vote against Muhammad Ilyas Khokhar, respondent No, 2 and sent papers to the Registrar for approval. The order of the Registrar has been challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the learned lower Court and applied for ad interim stay for restraining the new office-holders from acting as such.
The petition has been dismissed. The learned lower Court among other reasons has observed that the agenda for the meeting held on 23-8-1987 was bearing the signatures of the petitioner as well as respondent No, 2 and that the said agenda showed that the meeting was to be held to consider whether the office-holders may sever their connection with the Federation. The learned lower Court has to record finding on the merits of the case but for the refusal of the stay it is sufficient that the agenda which purports to bear the signatures of the petitioner also was not to the effect that whether the appeal pending before the National Industrial Relations Commission be withdrawn or not but was for the consideration of the point whether the office-holders should sever their B connection from the Federation. In these circumstances, the order of the learned lower Court refusing the injunction prayed for does not appear to be wrong or without jurisdiction.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has lastly requested that if the revision is dismissed, direction may be issued to the learned lower Court to decide the appeal within ten days. This request too cannot be accepted, because the present case is fresh whereas many old cases may be pending in the learned lower Court. Such a request may be made to the learned lower Court and it will be upto the said Court to consider the request and to accept or reject the same.
4. As upshot of the observations made above, the revision fails and is dismissed in limine.