DECISION This application has been moved under section 38(3a) of I.R.O.,1969. Mr. Suleman Habibullah raised objection that the revision is not maintainable as the party cannot file Revision Application and that the Tribunal cannot initiate suo motu revision on the application of aggrieved party. In his support he has relied upon PLD 1979 Karachi page 725. He also relied upon PLD 1984 Karachi page 519 which is latest Division Bench decision of Sindh High Court on the point at issue. It has been held therein that Labour Appellate Tribunal, on receipt of information even from a party through an application, if came to conclusion that case for exercise of suo motu revisional power had been made out and that it would foster cause of justice could exercise suo motu powers. In view of this decision there can be no dispute that this Tribunal can exercise suo motu revisional powers even on the application of the aggrieved party if the party makes out a case that there is a case for exercise of suo mow revisional powers. Under section 38(3a) this Tribunal can exercise suo motu revisional power for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any order passed by the Labour Court.
2. In the instant case there appears to be dispute between office-bearers of a Trade Union the election of which was held under the orders of High Court on 2-7-1988. The applicants alleged that on 25-3-1989 the General Body Meeting was held in which certain changes in office-bearers were effected which was communicated to the Registrar of Trade Unions and it was accepted vide letter of Registrar dated 16-5-1989. The respondents, on the other hand, alleged that they have also held the meeting of General Body on 17-4-1989 in which change of office-bearers was effected which was communicated to the Registrar vide letter dated 26-4-1989 which was rejected by the Registrar vide above-said letter dated 16-5-1989. Aggrieved by this decision of Registrar the respondent filed an appeal before the learned Labour Court No, 5 at Karachi who vide impugned order granted Interim Stay staying the order of the Registrar of Trade Union accepting the change of office-bearers made by the applicants.
3. Mr. M.L. Shahani was asked to point out any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. Mr. Shahani contended that the learned Labour Court had not considered the Written Statement filed by respondent No,3 on the ground that it was not verified on oath and secondly that the order does not show as to what irreparable loss would be caused to the respondents if the Stay Order was not granted and furthermore it had no jurisdiction to grant Stay Order. Mr. Shahani conceded that the Labour courts have been issuing interim injunctions and even in his own cases he had been obtaining/interim injunctions. Under Section 36(2) of I.R.O., the Labour Courts have been invested with powers of Civil Courts. It is not disputed that Civil Courts have got power to grant interim injunctions. If the Labour Court is. empowered to grant the final relief it can also grant interim relief in suitable cases as otherwise in certain cases the appeal would become infructuous as the relief by the passage of time might become incapable of being granted. With regard to the Written Statement of the Registrar the order that was impugned before the learned Labour Court was not a speaking order as no reasons for passing order are disclosed in this order. The facts which were disclosed by the Registrar in his written statement were in fact the facts which arc asserted by the party and which were duly considered by the learned Labour Court. Beside in an interim order the Court form only a tentative opinion which is open to correction/revision at the time of final order.
4. With regard to irreparable loss it cannot be said that an elected office- bearer who is being deprived of or restrained from performing his functions by the impugned order of Registrar would not suffer irreparable loss or damage if ultimately in appeal the order of the Registrar is set aside.
5. The appeal before the learned Labour Court was filed under section 8 (7) of I.R.O., which empowers the Labour Court either to direct the Registrar to register the change and alteration in the constitution or in the officers of Trade Union or may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the Registrar to hold fresh elections of the Union under his supervision. Here two rival groups had moved the Registrar for change in the office-bearers of the Trade Union and till after hearing the parties the Labour Court could come to the conclusion as to which faction of Trade Union had legally effected the change in office-bearers, the learned Labour Court ordered the stay of the change in the office-bearers of Trade Union which, in other words, means that by this order the position at it stood before the change was effected by the Registrar was restored by the learned Labour Court: to be more specific the office-bearers who were elected on 5-71988 would continue to work as office-bearers till further orders.
6. Under the circumstances of this case and looking to the rival claims and contentions made by both the parties the Interim Stay, neither looks improper nor illegal to call for any interference by this Tribunal in exercise of its suo motu powers. However, the learned Labour Court is directed to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. Parties are directed to file their affidavits and counter- affidavits, if any, before the 30th of this month so that the matter can be heard by the learned Labour Court on 1st July when the Labour Court re-opens after vacation.
7. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Labour Court on 1st July, 1989. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.