2009 PLC 375 (PLP)

BASHIR AHMED MEMON (MEMBER).

The above named petitioners have filed this petition under section 25(8)(g) of the I.R.A., 2008 along with it, has also filed application under Regulation 32(2)(c) NIRC(P&F) Regulations, 1973 for interim relief against the respondents.

2. Briefly the case of petitioners as disclosed in the petition is that they are employed as permanent workmen in the establishment of respondents and are working as Chaufeur/Driver. They have claimed that the respondents have employed 150 workers in Karachi and working out of nearly 7000 locations in more than 150 countries with the world larger fleet of over 5,25,000 vehicles therefore, the labour laws including Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 and condition of I.S.O. are fully applicable to the respondent establishment as their business is worldwide. It is alleged by the petitioners that respondents are paying overtime payment less than as defined in Factories Act and do not follow the labour laws. All the workers including the petitioners decided to form a trade union which was formed in a meeting held on 23-11-2008 in the name and style Hertz Optimus Ltd. Workers' Union so that legal and infringed benefits could be achieved by the petitioners. It is claimed by the petitioners that after formation of the trade union application for registration of the union was submitted to the Registrar of Trade Unions and such information as required under section .10 of the I.R.O., 2002 was communicated to the employer. It is alleged by the petitioners that after receiving the information of formation of the union the respondents have become hostile towards them and are threatening the petitioners of dire consequences if they did not withdraw their union. The petitioners have further alleged that Amir Sab Manager Operation and Ali Madad Shah Incharge of the respondent are issuing threats to them and so also Ghulam Rasool, Senior Supervisor and Ghaffar, Deputy Incharge of respondents are pressurizing the petitioners to desist from the formation of union otherwise they will be removed from employment by hook or crook. The petitioners apprehending their removal from employment during the pendency of registration of their trade union have filed this petition with prayer to restrain the respondents from dismissing, discharging, terminating, retrenching, removing or sacking the petitioners from service.

3. While admitting the petition on 15-12-2009 this Bench of Commission passed interim prohibitory order restraining the respondents from removing the petitioners from service.

4. Respondents filed their comments with legal objections on main petition and counter-affidavit on stay application. The respondents have denied the allegations of unfair labour practice and have asserted that no intimation of formation of trade union has ever been received from the petitioners. They have also denied that they have ever extended threats-to the petitioners of removal from employment. It is asserted by the respondents that the allegation that respondents are operating in 7000 locations in more than 150 countries with a fleet of 5,25,000 vehicles is incorrect and so also inference to ISO is denied as much as that the respondent establishment is certified under ISO. It is the case of the respondents that they are running in losses. It is claimed by the respondents that they always welcome healthy trade union activities and are not against any of the active trade unionist. They have asserted that the petitioners have alleged only bald and vague allegations of unfair labour practice and no document whatsoever has been produced showing that the respondents were sent any notice under section 10 of the I.R.O., 2002. The respondents have specifically denied the allegation levelled by the petitioners against officials of the respondents. They have therefore, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. I have heard arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record by both the parties.

6. In the petition the petitioners alleged that they have formed a trade union, applied for its registration and information as required under section 10 of the I.R.O., 2002 was sent to the employer and pending registration of their union they apprehended removal from service at the hands of respondents. No any document has been placed on record showing that any intimation of formation of the union was received by the respondents as required under section 10 of the I.R.O., 2002. Only vague and general allegations are made in the petition about commission of unfair labour practice and threats to have been issued by the officers of the respondents, as such it cannot be said that there was any apprehension of commission of unfair labour practice. In the absence of any specific instance of unfair labour practice the petition appears to misconceived and premature. Mere formation of a trade union and sending information as required under section 10 of the I.R.O., 2002 is not sufficient to presume that of unfair labour practice is being committed by the respondents. "In the absence of any material in support of the allegation this petition is not maintainable and is liable to' be dismissed. In view of above facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that the petitioners have failed to establish a case of unfair labour practice, as such the petition stands disposed of along with stay application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC(P&F) Regulations, 1973. However, the parties are directed to conduct their affairs in a manner calculated to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practice. H.B.T.11/NIRC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.