1999 PLP 144 (PLC)

S.M. Yaqoob for Respondents. This order will dispose of application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 filed by Muhammad Yasin and 7 others applicants supported by affidavit of applicant Muhammad Yasin to restrain the respondents and persons connected with them not to remove the applicants from the employment under the garb of termination, retrenchment dismissal, lock‑out and also not to change the terms and conditions of employment to the detriment of the applicants due to trade union activities, its promotion and formation and also not to commit the acts of unfair labour practice and to behave in a manner calculated to avoid the acts of unfair labour practice in the interest of justice. 2. Counter‑affidavit was filed by Abdul Razzak Madar, Manager of the respondent establishment on stay _application denying all the allegations of unfair labour practice levelled by the applicants. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, learned Advocate for the applicants and Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned Advocate for the respondents. 4. Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, learned Advocate for the applicants has submitted that applicants are permanent workmen employed in the establishment of respondents. Since they were being deprived of their legal rights and benefits including their appointment letters, identity cards, attendance cards and social security cards etc. as such they decided to form a trade union which they formed in the name and style Mustaqim Dyeing Printing Industries Labour Union on 14‑6‑1998. He has further contended that as soon as the respondents heard about formation of the union they became annoyed and started making inquiries to harass the members and office‑bearers of the union. Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, learned Advocate for the applicants further contended that the applicants were elected office bearers of the union and they informed the respondents about the formation of the union by notice under section 8‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 on 17‑6‑1998, vide Annexure 'A'. Toe application for registration of the union was also submitted to the Registrar of Trade Unions on 18‑6‑1998. He has further contended that due to these activities of the petitioners, the respondents are annoyed with the applicants and have started committing acts of unfair labour practice by way of issuing threats to the applicants of termination, retrenching, dismissing or changing their terms and conditions of service; therefore, the interim prohibitory order be confirmed. 5. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned Advocate for the respondents has contended that the application filed by the respondents is misconceived and does not attract the jurisdiction of this Bench of Commission as there is no element of unfair labour practice stated by the respondents. He has further contended that no specific act of unfair labour practice has been alleged by the applicants and only general allegations are levelled by the applicants. He has further contended that the applicants have formed their union on 14‑6‑1998 and according to them they informed the respondents through notice under section 8‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 on 17‑6‑1998 and applied for registration of the union on 18‑6‑1998. On the same day the instant application has been filed by the applicants alleging unfair labour practice on the part of respondents which are not possible. He has further contended that since the respondents were not served with the notice of formation of the union dated 17‑6‑1998, the allegation of commission of unfair labour practice does not lie as the instance application has been filed on the very next day alleging likelihood of Commission of acts of unfair labour practice; therefore, the interim prohibitory order be vacated and the application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C. (P & F) Regulations, 1973 is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contention he has relied upon on case of Allied Bank of Pakistan Workers' Union and another v. Zonal Chief, ABPL and another reported in 1994 PLC 131, Talib Hussain v. Superintending Engineer, Electricity WAPDA and another reported in 1994 PLC 747, Inayat Ali and another v. Regional Manager, PAD & SC, Faisalabad, reported in 1994 PLC 762, Iftikhar Ahmad v. N.I.R.C. and others 1998 PLC 268 and Iftikhar Ahmad v. President, N.B.P. and others reported in PLD 1988 SC 53. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by Mr. Riaz Hussain Baloch, learned Advocate for the applicants and Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned Advocate for the respondents. 7. It is an admitted position that the applicants have formed their union on 14‑6‑1998 and sent intimation to the respondents under section 8‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 on 17‑6‑1998 and also filed this application on 18‑6‑1998 on the allegation of apprehended acts of unfair labour practice. Since there is nothing on record to show that the intimation was received by the respondents about the formation of the union on the same day when notice under section 8‑A of the I.R.O., 1969 was sent to them, as such, it cannot be said that there was any apprehension of commission of any act of unfair labour practice. Only vague and general allegations are made in the application about commission of unfair labour practice, as such, in the absence of any special instance, this application appears to be misconceived and pre‑mature and liable to be dismissed. There is also nothing on record to show that any unfair labour practice was ever committed by the respondents previously. Under the circumstances and the reasons given above, this application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C. (P & F) Regulations, 1973 is dismissed and the interim prohibitory order passed by this Bench of Commission on 18‑6‑1998 stands recalled. To come up on 24‑9‑1998 for filing affidavit‑in‑evidence by the applicants. Announced in open Court. Given under my hand and seal of the Commission, this 19th day of February, 1998. H.B.T./318/N.I.R.C. Application dismissed.