1954 PLP 1617 (PLC)

This complaint under section 15 (I) (d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been submitted by Saeedur Rehman, General Secretary, Saif Nadeem Kawasaki Motors Limited Workers Union, Khalabutt Township, Haripur Hazara. The complainant was employed with the respondent establishment with effect from 11th October, 1983. The workmen of the Company formed a Trade Union on 24th February, 1984 in the name of Saif Nadeem Kawasaki Motors Limited Workers Union and the complainant was elected its General Secretary. The registration documents of the Union were submitted to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Peshawar and Hazara Division on 26th February, 1984 and the Registrar vide his letter, dated 12th March, 1984 raised certain objections which were replied by the Union on 15th March, 1984. That even after the reply to the objections, the Registrar did not register the Trade Union and an appeal was therefore filed with the Labour Court, Hazara Division which is still pending.

2. It has been submitted that the complainant was removed from service on 4th March, 1984 with mala fide intention on the grounds that his services were no longer required. The respondents Nos. 2 to 4 sum moned Zareen Shah, Muhammad Saeed, Maqsood Ahmad, Saeed Akhtar and Muhammad Nisar in their office and asked them to resign from Trade Union or from the company but when they refused to resign from Trade Union, their entry in the factory was stopped without any written orders w. e. f. 24th March, 1984. A case was filed before the N. I. R. C. which passed an order restraining the respondents not to disallow these workers from entering the factory. That after the issue of the stay order of the Commission the respondent No. 1 withdrew the orders and re‑instated all the 7 workers and informed the Commission telegraphically. The case was thereafter consigned to record.

3. It has been submitted that on 8th of May, 1984 the respondent No. 3 alongwith Ghazanfar Ali the then Manager Administration gathered all the workers at about 4.00 p. m. in the factory and pressurised them to disassociate themselves from the Union but the workers did not agree. It has been alleged that on or about 20th of May, 1984 the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 called the complainant and Ansar Muhammad, President of the Union and asked them to quit the Union or else be prepared for consequences. Both these office‑bearers did not agree to quit the Union. On 31st May, 1984 a letter was issued to the complainant and 15 others under which it was stated that the management has decided to close the Fabrication Shop. This letter was issued with bad intention and with a view to getting rid of the prominent office‑bearers of the Union who were variously re‑instated in service after the issuance of the orders of the Commission.

4. It was submitted that the respondents have committed gross unfair labour practice and it has therefore, been prayed that the respondents be summoned and punished in accordance with law.

5. I have heard the learned representative of the complainant and the learned counsel for the respondents. The learned representative the complainant repeated the same arguments as given in the complain and stated that the respondents have committed a gross unfair labour practice by closing down the Fabrication Shop.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents however submitted that the Fabrication Shop was closed as it was no more required and the services of all the 16 workers employed in that shop were terminated. The Fabrication Shop was installed when the erection of the factory was started to fabricated doors, windows, painting booths, trolly, test start and racks for store and shops, fencing of store, exhaust for buffing shop: booths for welding shop, truck bodies and electroplating tanks for instal lation of the factory. After the fabrication of the above‑mentioned equipments and its installation in the factory Fabrication Shop was no more required and it has to be closed down and the workmen working therein had to be retrenched as their services were no more require. It has been submitted that the Japanese experts visited the factory or, 24th May, 1984 and issued instructions that the Fabrication Shop should be closed down immediately as it was no longer required. The Fabrica tion Shop is always installed temporarily when the erection of factories starts for fabricating equipment to be installed therein and is always closed down when the erection of the factory is completed and tile equipments fabricated by the said shop are installed therein. The service of the complainant and 15 other workmen were therefore, no longer requir ed and were retrenched in terms of Standing Orders 13 of the Industrial and Commercial Establishments (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.

7. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that: the workers employed in the Fabrication Shop were a separate category themselves and as such they were retrenched en bloc. The factory consists of various shops manned by trained workmen who cannot be put to work in other shops due to specialised training. The factory at present consists of the following shops :‑ "Painting Shop, Welding Shop, Fuel Tank Shop, Seat Assembly Shop, Plastic Moulding Shop, Frame Assembly Shop, Engine Assembly Shop, Sheer Assembly Shop, Hubb Shop, Die Casting Shop, Die Tools Shop, Electroplating Shop, Press Shop, Quality Control Shop and the Stores.

8. It has been submitted that in these shops only those workers as:: employed who are properly trained in their respective jobs by the local and foreign engineers in order to maintain efficient and proper working of the said shops. The management had informed the Director Labour, N. W. F. P the N. I. R. C. and other concerned officers about this development vide letter, dated 31st May, 1984.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that out of the 16 workers who have been retrenched 12 are not the office bearers of the Trade Union. The other office‑bearers of the Union are still working in various shops and they are free to participate in promotion and formation of Trade Union. The learned counsel denied having asked the offence‑bearers to resign from the Trade Union. The services of the 7 workmen were terminated in March, 1984 as they had become surplus but their orders of termination were withdrawn as a gesture of goodwill to the Governor of N.W.F.P. 1t has further been submitted that the Commission was not empowered to order re‑instatement of the complainant by way of interim relief because according to the complainant an unfair labour practice has already occurred and the relief by way of reinstate ment can only be granted if he is found guilty of the unfair labour practice.

9. I agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the Fabrication Shops are installed only to fabricate equipment for the factory' and once the equipment has been fabricated and installed in the factory such Fabrication Shop is no longer required to be maintained. It is by chance that two of the office‑bearers happened to be employed in this Fabrication Shop as all the remaining office‑bearers are working in other shops and the Union has not alleged any act of unfair labour practice on~ the part of the management in respect of other office‑bearers of the Union. The arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that these workmen cannot be absorbed in any other department also appears to be sound as all the workers in other shops got. specialised training and cannot be replaced by these workers retrenched from the Fabrication Shop.

10. I find that the complainant has failed to make out any case of unfair labour practice and I, therefore, dismiss the complaint. M. Y. M. Complaint dismissed.