REVISION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908



IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KARACHI (MALIR) 
Civil Revision No. / 2012 

PIA Senior Staff Association (PIASSA) Through its Deputy General Secretary, Dr Shahid-ul-Haq s/o Shams-ul-Haq, Muslim, Adult, having offices at: 

(i) M-1 & M-2, Fort Building, Opposite Airport Telephone Exchange, Main Shahrah-e-Faisal, Karachi. 

(ii) PIA Head Office, situated at Karachi Airport, Karachi. -------------------------------------- APPLICANT 

VERSUS

1. Pakistan Airlines Cabin Crew Association, Through its President, Mr Hameed Khan, Muslim Adult, having office at Office No. A-128, Block IV, near Jauhar Telephone Exchange, Gulistan-e-Jauhar, Karachi. 

2. Alliance of Friends of PIA Senior Staff Association, Through Dr Farooque Khan s/o Sher Ali Khan, Muslim, Adult, r/o A-2/F1, Block No. 9-C, Gulshan-e- Iqbal, Karachi. 

3. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation (PIAC) Through its Managing Director, having office at Jinnah International Terminal, Karachi. 

4. The Learned IInd Senior Civil Judge Karachi (Malir) ------------------------------- RESPONDENTS 

REVISION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 

                    Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 13/03/2012 passed by the Learned IInd Senior Civil Judge Karachi (Malir), the Respondent No. 4 herein, in Suit No. 17/2012 (Pakistan Airlines Cabin Crew Association v. PIAC & ors.) whereby the Respondent No. 4 dismissed the application under Order 7 rule 11 C. P. C. filed by the Applicant in Suit No. 17/2012, hence, the Applicant prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to examine the contents of the plaint, its supporting annexures and examine the legality and propriety of the impugned order and thereafter reject the plaint on the following facts and grounds. 

FACTS 

The facts leading to the filing of the instant application are as follows: 

                That the Applicant is an organisation, registered on 17/02/2009, with the Registrar, Provincial Registrar Joint Stock Company, Karachi. The aims and objectives of the Applicant are as under: 

i. To unite officers’ cadre serving in pay group V to pay group IX in PIA. 

ii. To protect and safeguard their honour, prestige and integrity of the officers. 

iii. To secure better terms and conditions for officers working in PIA. 

iv. To promote cordial relations between PIA Management and members of the Applicant association. 

v. To settle differences arising between the members and the management. 

vi. To protect the interest of its members in case of dispute with the employers and to provide assistance to those who may be removed from service as a result of dispute or lock out. 

vii. To consider, originate and support improvement / formation of laws of the corporation and at all other levels of the Government. 

viii. To organise clubs, co-operative, cultural and social activities for the benefit of the members. 

ix. To publish periodicals, news, bulletins, pamphlets and issue press releases to promote the cause of the Applicant association.

x. To provide financial assistance to needy members and their dependants. 

xi. To co-operate and federate with other unions. Associations, organisations within or outside the PIA, which have some aims and objectives. 

xii. To act as an employment agency on behalf of its members. 

xiii. To act as an agency for insurance of its members. 

xiv. To raise funds through admission fees, monthly subscription, deduction from salary and all other means permissible under the law of force. 

xv. To perform any other acts that may be necessary or incidental for achieving any or all of the aforesaid objectives. 
                                (Photocopy of the Applicant’s registration certificate and aims and objectives are attached herewith and marked as Annexures “A-1” and “A-2” respectively) 

The Respondent No. 1 stated in the Court of First Instance that it is a welfare association of the cabin crew stock company in pay group V and above and is working with Respondent No. 3. It was registered under Societies Act (XII of 1860) in 2009 and alleges that the basic purpose leading to its formation and registration is / was to protect and safeguard the rights of the cabin crew working in all airlines in Pakistan as the cabin crew working in the airlines in Pakistan that their rights and welfare were being infringed. Respondent No. 1 claims that its class of employees’ duties and obligations is compatible with existing welfare associations such as Pakistan Airlines Pilot Association (PALPA) and Flight Engineers Association (FENA) and that it has about 677 members out of 1, 080. 

                It is further stated that following the registration of Respondent No. 1, a meeting of the Executive body of Respondent No. 2 was held on or about 11/09/2009. During that meeting, Respondent No. 1 was asked for its Memorandum and Articles of Association, its bye-laws, its registration certificate and list of members by Respondent No. 3, which was duly supplied to Respondent No. 3 by Respondent No. 1. Following thereon, Respondent No. 1 provided a list of members to Respondent No. 3 in respect of the members of the cabin crew staff comprising of 422 members in order to collect the membership contribution of Rs. 100/- every month. It was agreed upon by the listed members that an initial membership of Rs. 400/- would be charged. A second list was provided on 15/05/2010 by Respondent No. 1 which was amended by the list of members dated 11/05/2010 respectively, consisting of 153 members of the cabin crew staff. Respondent No. 3 in response, addressed a letter to the general secretary of Respondent No. 1 and forwarded copies of the same letter to the Director Finance, General Manager Industrial Relation and General Manager Accounts vide letters dated 22/04/2010 and 06/05/2010. Through these letters, Respondent No. 3 approved the deduction of contribution of Rs. 100/- every month and the initial membership fee of Rs. 400/- from the listed members of 422 and 95 through pay roll and taxes section.
                
                 The Respondent No. 3 also wrote a letter to Respondent No. 1 asking it to hold elections of its members within thirty days as per Article 17 of the Memorandum of Association of Respondent No. 1. On 03/08/2011 on the basis of minutes of the meeting addressed to the Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 3 directed Respondent No. 1 to withhold the scheduled election with immediate effect till further orders. These instructions were also forwarded to the Election Commissioner and, in pursuance of these instructions, the Chief Election Commissioner Intimated Respondent No. 1 to suspend/stop all activities pertaining to the election. It is stated that following this act of Respondent No. 3, Respondent No. 1 filed many objections against such act but all was in vain. It also claimed a sum of Rs. 1, 352, 500/- from Respondent No. 3 which the Respondent No. 3 illegally deducted from the members of Respondent No. 1 in pay group V and above in-flight services. Moreover, Respondent No. 3 permitted the Applicant to hold its election on 27/01/2012 in order to create hardship to the Respondent No. 1 vide its letter no. GM (IR) PIASSA/Election/11/1001 dated 11/11/2011. 

            Therefore, Respondent No. 1 filed suit No. 17/2012 for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of amount of Rs. 1, 352, 500/- before the Learned Respondent No. 4 seeking therein the following reliefs: 

a. To declare that the letter and minutes dated 03/08/2011 (addressed to the Respondent No. 1) has no legal effect, as such is not binding upon Respondent No. 1. 

b. The Respondent No. 3 is bound to hold the election as agreed earlier and Respondent No. 1 may be allowed to hold election before the election of Applicant Association. 

c. The Respondent No. 3 be directed to allow Respondent No. 1 to hold election before the election of the Applicant Association. 

d. To direct the Respondent No. 3 not to allow the Applicant to hold election on the strength/majority of voters list of cabin crew pay group V and above as provided by the Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 1. 

e. The Respondent No. 1 also claimed recovery of Rs 1, 352, 500/- from Respondent No. 3, which the Respondent No. 3 has illegally deducted from the pay group V and above in the flight services. 

f. To declare that the job/work of the cabin crew is distinguish and compatible with the job/work of PALPA and FENA existing with the Respondent No. 3. 

g. Any other relief or reliefs which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper according to the circumstances of the case.

Pursuant to the filing of the suit, the Applicant filed an application under order 7 rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 humbly praying for rejection of the plaint on various grounds. This application was opposed by Respondent No. 1 and it filed its objections opposing the application under Order 7 rule 11. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the Court of First Instance dismissed the application under Order 7 rule 11 filed by the Applicant vide order dated 13/03/2012. 
                            (Certified photocopies of the plaint, its annexures, the application under Order 7 rule 11 and order dismissing the application are attached herewith and marked as Annexures “A-3”, “A-4”, “A-5” and A-6” respectively). 

Given the circumstances hereinabove; and having no right of appeal, the Applicant prefers the instant revision application on the following grounds: 

GROUNDS 

In view of the above facts, the Applicant seeks relief, inter alia, on the following grounds: 

1. That the Respondent No. 1 approached the Learned Trial Court with unclean hands and made various false statements as apparent from a bare reading of the pleadings filed by the Respondent No. 1 but the Learned Trial Court failed to take notice of this fact and misapplied its mind. 

2. That the Learned Trial Court was misled by the false, forged and bogus documents and affidavits filed by an unauthorised person. 

3. That the Court of First Instance did not take due account of the settled legal principles and law laid down by the superior courts of Pakistan and produced by the Applicant in support of its arguments and without considering the law, proceeded to reject the application under Order 7 rule 11 in a hasty manner, thus, it exercised its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. 

4. That the Learned Court of First Instance overlooked Para No. 18 of the plaint where the Respondent No. 1 failed to mention when the cause of action first accrued to it and when it lastly accrued, as such, the Respondent No. 1 had no cause of action to file the suit before the Court. 

5. That the Learned Trial Court did not take this fact into consideration that although the Respondent No. 1 had filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and recovery of an amount of Rs. 1, 352, 500/-, however, in Para No. 19, there is no mention regarding the court fee and jurisdiction for the purposes of declaration and permanent injunction. It was incumbent on Respondent No. 1 to specify the court fee and jurisdiction as well as value each relief separately which it sought for from the Learned Trial Court.

6. That the Learned Trial Court failed to take notice that Respondent No. 1 filed the suit in a Court which did not have the competent territorial jurisdiction based on the location of its own office as reflected by Para No. 20 of the plaint even though the law is crystal clear on this point that the suit is filed where the defendant resides or has its business office or where the cause of action accrued as envisaged in the Code of Civil Procedure. 

7. That the Trial Court ignored this fact that the plaint had neither been signed nor stamped by a person duly authorised by the executive body of the Applicant. The plaint has in fact been signed by the president who was previously acting as general secretary of the association but there is nothing on record that the said person was elected as president. 

8. That the Learned Court of First Instance wrongly assumed jurisdiction of the case as the Learned Trial Court, not vested with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and decide the said matter, proceeded to decide it. The case arose out of a dispute between the trade union/association and employer and the Learned Trial Court was not competent to decide the case as it did not have the requisite jurisdiction. 

HOW TO WRITE REVISION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 

9. That the Applicant seeks leave to urge further grounds at the time of hearing of the instant application. 

PRAYER 

The Applicant abovenamed humbly prays as under: 

a. To reject the plaint of the Respondent No. 1; 

b. To grant any other relief that this Hon’ble Court deems fit and necessary, as regards this case, in the interest of justice; & 

c. Costs of the application.

K A R A C H I                                          (SAJID MIR)

Dated 00.00.0000                          Advocate for the applicant

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that this is a first revision application u/s 115 of the code of civil procedureand no such application of same nature has been preferred by undersigned on behalf of the present applicant.

K A R A C H I                                          (SAJID MIR)

Dated 00.00.0000                          Advocate for the applicant

  • Document(s) filed: Annexure ‘A-1 to A-6’ 
  • Document(s) relied upon: Annexure ‘A-1 to A-6’ and all other documents that are necessary and relevant to the subject matter.
Update cookies preferences