' This is a revision reporting that the order dated 4-2-1989 recorded by learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 2, Lahore is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. The learned lower Court has vide the impugned order directed that the petitioner shall not violate the provisions of settlement dated 6-12-1988 and in case the factory is re-opened the workers previously employed by him would be taken on duty. Since the union whose General Secretary, the petitioner is, is alleged to be not a C.BA., the learned lower Court was not justified in ordering that all the workers will be re-called if the factory is restarted. The grievance petition was not brought by any C.BA. Nor a C.BA. Can come under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for its own interest. The respondent brought his grievance petition for his personal benefit, therefore, the stay order could be issued only to the extent that if the factory was restarted, the respondent would be re-called. The petitioner is contesting the claim of the respondent to be its employee, therefore, the stay order should have been conditional.
3. As a result the revision is partly accepted and the impugned decision is modified directing that if the respondent was the employee of the petitioner, the settlement dated 6-12-1988 so far as it benefits to him shall not be violated and if the factory is re-opened, the respondent would be recalled on duty.