1995 PLP 756 (PLC)

This is a petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 wherein the petitioner contends that he is an employee of the establishment of Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan and is also the General Secretary of the Muttahida Workers' Union at the Regional Office, Abbottabad. It is contended that the said union is also the Collective Bargaining Agent for the establishment of Utility Stores Corporation of Pakistan, Abbottabad. It is further contended that the respondent is always annoyed with the lawful trade union activities of the petitioner and is bent upon victimisation to the petitioner through unfair labour practice. It was contended that the management/respondent has planted a fabricated case against the petitioner that the union office was illegally used for the residence and Rs.1,500 received each month by the petitioner on the pretext of payment of union office etc. were unlawfully retained by the petitioner. It was further contended that a show‑cause notice has been served upon the petitioner and the respondent intends to terminate the services of the petitioner by unfair labour practice. Considering such circumstances this Commission issued interim injunction on 21‑3‑1995. 2 The petition was strongly contested by the respondent by way of filing written statement and rejoinder to stay application wherein certain legal preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the documents available on record with their help.

4. It is an admitted feature of the case that on 31‑1‑1995 raid was conducted by the team of F.I.A., Abbottabad headed by EAC‑1 Magistrate Class I, Abbottabad in the house which was hired by the respondent establishment for the union office, against a rent of Rs.1,500 per month from one Muhammad Akram. The learned Magistrate and the team of F.IA. founded that the house has been used as a residential accommodation jointly by Muhammad Akram (Owner) and Ali Mardan since from 10/12 years. Upon such averments an F.I.R. No. 1 of 1995 was also lodged in the F.IA. Station, Abbottabad and in consequence of the said F.I.R. the petitioner had also got bail from competent Court of law. It is also admitted by the parties that a criminal case is still pending before the competent Court of law. The allegations of misconduct against the petitioner, on the basis whereof charge sheet dated 8‑2‑1995 has been served upon the petitioner stands mere allegations until and unless the same has been proved in the competent Court of law in the consequence of F.I.R. No. 1 of 1995 dated 31‑1‑1995. It would be premature if the services of the petitioner are terminated by the respondent on the basis of the said allegation, which are yet to be proved in the Court of law. The status of the petitioner as General Secretary of the Muttahida Workers' Union, Abbottabad has not been denied by the respondent nor the status of the said union as Collective Bargaining Agent was disputed. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner being victimised on account of his lawful trade union activities, cannot be ruled out.

5. As a result of above discussion I am of the view that the charge‑sheet dated 8‑2‑1995 is premature and can only be served upon the petitioner after the decision of the case pending in the Criminal Court and therefore, the respondent are restrained from termination/dismissal/discharge or removal from service of the petitioner till the final decision in the criminal case which is pending before the competent Court in consequences of F.I.R. No. 1 of 1995 Abbottabad dated 31‑1‑1995. Operation of the show‑cause notice dated 14‑3‑1995 shall also remain suspended till the abovementioned decision by the competent Court of law. However, the services of the petitioner, which are already suspended by the respondent shall remain suspended till that time. With the above observation the petition is disposed of without any order as to costs. H.B.T./231/NIRC Order accordingly.