' This is a revision reporting that the order dated 4-6-1988 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No, 1, Lahore confirming the ad interim stay order is without jurisdiction and of no legal effect.
2. Neither in the ad interim stay order nor in the order dated 4-6-1988 whereby ad interim order was confirmed and the application of the petitioner for vacation of the stay order was rejected, it is discussed if the respondents had a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience was in their favour and that irreparable loss was likely to be suffered by them. The petitioner union was registered by the Registrar on 17-11-1986 and the said order has been challenged by the respondents under section 10 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The learned lower Court has treated the said petition as one brought under section 34 of the abovementioned Ordinance.
The stay order prayed for was that the office-holders be prevented from acting as such till the decision of the main petition. Since the petitioner union stands registered, its office-holders have a vested right to work for the benefits of the workers and till the union is registered, they are entitled to function as such. In the absence of finding that the balance of convenience goes in favour of the respondent and that the respondents are likely to suffer from irreparable injury if the office-holders of the union continue functioning, there could be no justification to issue stay order.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned order of the learned lower Court it is directed that the application for the issuance of stay order be redefined in the light of the observations made above.