' This is a petition under section 22-A(8)g) of the I.R.O., 1969 filed by the Establishment of Pakistan Postal Service Corporation, against the office-bearers of the Pakistan Postal Headquarters Employes' Union, which is the C.BA. Of the petitioner's establishment. It was contended that being the C.BA. Of the petitioner's establishment, respondents have raised certain demands but for the acceptance of the same, the respondents have bent upon taking the law into their own hands and are likely to commence an illegal strike which constitutes acts of unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 16 of the I.R.O., 1969. Therefore, under such circumstances interim injunction order was issued against the respondents on 4-7-1995 thereby restraining them from holding or taking any strike etc. 2 . The petition was strongly contested by the respondents by way of filing of written statement and rejoinder to the stay application, wherein certain preliminary legal objections as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised.
3. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record of the case. It is an admitted feature of the case that the Pakistan Postal Service Headquarters Employees Union is a registered trade union and also is the C.BA. Of the petitioner's establishment but the status of the respondents as its office-bearers was disputed on the ground that period of offices of the present office-bearers is about to expire on 22-8-1995 and the present respondents are not likely to continue in the offices of the union which they are presently holding because some 207 workers out of 350 workers employed in the Headquarters C.B.U. Have made an application to the present petitioner that they have no confidence upon the present respondents and have also demanded fresh elections.
4. At this stage I feel it necessary to observe that until and unless new office-bearers have been lawfully replaced with the respondents, the respondents have a right to continue in the said offices and their offices will not automatically become vacant on the expiry of the period for which they were elected, therefore, the refusal of the petitioner to negotiate with the respondents upon their demands is not justified. At the same time it is also necessary to hold that the strike notice dated 5-10-1994 issued by the petitioner No, 1 as General Secretary, is premature, as the mandatory requirement of section 26 of the I.R.O., 1969 i,e, bilateral negotiations between the parties, have not been complied with. The record does not indicate that there was a positive attempt by the parties for commencing bilateral negotiations, in order to reach a settlement and resolve the industrial dispute. The dispute over the offices of the C.B.A. Is purely an internal matter of the union and the management/employer cannot take shelter of such dispute in order to avoid negotiations with the present office-bearers of the C.BA. The case-law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner i,e, Marker Alkolied Limited Employees' Union v. Marker Alkolied Limited reported in 1976 SCMR 1982 is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as in the present case there was no attempt at all for holding bilateral negotiations, in order to reach a settlement, which not only is the basic intention of the law-makers as incorporated in the provision of section 26 of the I.R.O., 1969 but also renders the strike notice illegal.
5. As a result of the above discussion, the petition is partly accepted and the respondents are restrained from going on strike in furtherance of the submission of Charter of Demand and the petitioner/ establishment is directed to constitute their new work council in terms of section 26 of the I.R.O., 1969 in order to initiate bilateral negotiations with the respondents upon their charter of demands. There shall be no orders as to costs.