MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.- This revision petition has arisen from a suit for permanent injunction filed by the petitioner and is directed against order dated 6.5.1990 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, Lahore whereby appeal filed by the respondents against order dated 22.4.1989 passed by the learned trial Court through which an application made by the Petitioner/plaintiff for issuance of temporary injunction was allowed has been accepted.
2. The case of the Petitioner/plaintiff was that he was the President of all Pakistan Federation of Labour which was duly registered as Federation for N.I.R.C under the Labour Laws. The respondent No. 1 is using the name of the said Federation by adding the word (Durrani Group) in correspondence with the International Trades Union Under the name and style of A.P.F.O.L which was illegal as also an offence. A decree for permanent injunction was sought in the suit for restraining the respondents from using the said name APFOL (DURRANI GROUP) during the pendency of the suit. The application was accepted by the learned trial Court and temporary injunction issued through order dated 22.4.1989. The respondents feeling aggrieved filed appeal before the learned lower appellate Court which has been accepted by order dated 6.5.1990.
Impugned in this revision petition.
3. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties. The learned lower appellate Court remarked that it was not mentioned by the learned trial Court as to what legal right of the plaintiff was infringed. It has also been held that the plaintiff should have cither prosecuted the respondents for criminal acts or sued them for damages to their good will and reputation. This according to learned lower appellate Court was equally efficacious remedy.
4. Under the Labour Laws various trade Unions by joining together are allowed to get themselves registered as a Federation. The practitioner/Federation has been registered under the Labour Law as Federation which fact was not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for respondents also admitted that previous to separation of the respondents group to trade union from the Federation registered they were also the part of the same Federation, lt was after the death of Mr. Rehmat Ullah- Durrani father of respondent No. 1 who was President of the Federation that the respondents group separated. Learned counsel for the respondents when questioned also frankly conceded that the respondents group of trade union have not been registered as Federation under the Labour Laws.
5. According to principle laid down by the superior Courts regarding issuance of temporary injunction the petitioner was required to show that he had prima facie case, balance of convenience was in his favour and that he would suffer irreparable loss in case the temporary injunction as prayed for was not issued. The case of he petitioner was that till such time the respondents get their Federation registered in the name and style of APFOL with or without the words (DURRANI GROUP) under the relevant laws. They could not use the said name and style by which name and style the petitioner's Federation had been registered with the N.I.R.C under the relevant laws and was operating. The petitioner was not obliged to show that he had a case which must succeed ultimately in order to establish that he had prima facie case, lt was sufficient for the petitioner to show that he had arguable case and had raised a fair question which required consideration. The question which the petitioner had raised was certainly such which made his case an arguable case. It has to be decided as to what are the legal consequences of registration of petitioner's Federation under the name and style of APFOL on the rights of the respondents to use the same name and style with or without addition of the word (DURRANI GROUP) without getting the same registered. Since the petitioner is operating under the said name and style therefore, the balance of convenience was in favour of the petitioner because if the respondents ae allowed to function under the name and Style APFOL (DURRANI GROUP) it was likely to cause harassment to the petitioner inasmuch as it was not practicable for it to explain the real position to all the concerned with whom the respondents had to deal under the said name and style. On the question of loss the petitioner had certainly a case because if respondents operates in the name and style of APFOL (DURRANI GROUP) with the foreign Federation etc and ultimately it was found that it could not operate under the said pa me and style having not been registered the loss which would have been caused to the petitioner would certainly be irreparable. The findings of the learned lower appellate Court that the petitioner had remedy to proceed against the respondents under the criminal law for illegal use of the said name and style or to i.e a suit for damages holding that the said remedies were equally efficacious arc not. Tenable inasmuch as the same would not only result in multiplicity of proceedings and the parties shall be driven to endless litigation. Even otherwise mere remedy of recovery of damages or initiation of criminal proceedings would not be an efficacious remedy for the petitioner in the circumstances of the case as regards temporary injunction.
6. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order passed by learned lower appellate Court suffers from material irregularity and illegality as it has been passed by ignoring well settled principles regarding issuance of temporary injunction settled by the superiors Courts and is not sustainable.
7. The revision petition is accepted. The impugned order dated 6.5.1990 passed by learned Additional District Judge is set aside and that of the trial Court restored. There will be no order as to costs.
8. Before parting with this judgment, it may be clarification in case the respondents obtains an order from the concerned authorities under the Labour Laws for the Registration of their Federation under the name and style APFOL with or without the word Durrani Group the temporary injunction shall cease to operate immediately. It may also be clarified that if an applications made by the respondents before any authority under the Labour Laws for registration of their Federation in the name and style of APFOL with or without Durrani Group or any other name and style the same shall be processed and decided on merits in accordance with law and the pendency of the suit and the temporary injunction issued shall not operate as a bar against the said proceedings.
9. The observations and the findings recorded in this order and the order of learned trial Court which has been maintained are tentative in nature and have been made merely regarding disposal of application for temporary injunction and the leamed trial Court shall decide the suit on merits in accordance with law uninfluenced by the said findings.