2009 PLP 354 (PLC)

BASHIR AHMED MEMON (MEMBER).

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

2. The brief facts as stated in the petition are that petitioner No.1 Optimus Limited Employees Union is an industry-wise trade union registered with RITU and is also Collective Bargaining Agent for the workmen employed by respondent No.1, establishment. It is claimed by the petitioners that petitioner No.1 has raised industrial dispute through charter of demands but the respondent No.1 is adopting delaying tactics to curb check and stifle the bona fide trade union activities. It is further claimed by the petitioners that respondent No.4 union has also submitted charter of demands on which negotiations are going on. It is alleged by the petitioners that respondents Nos.1 and 2 have entertaining illegally constituted trade union, (respondent No.4) but are adopting delaying tactics towards charter of demands submitted by petitioner No.1 union and are committing different type of acts which amount to unfair labour practice. It is alleged that respondent No.1-Management has issued letters of warnings to petitioners Nos.2 and 3 on the false and concocted allegations which amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of respondents-Management. It is further stated that office-bearers of respondent No.4-Union are also committing acts of unfair labour practice in collusion with the management of respondentNo.1 and are threatening the office-bearers and activists of petitioner No.1-Unnion of dismissal, removal and further injuries in respect of their employment. It is, therefore, prayed to restrain the respondents from committing acts of unfair labour practice.

3. While admitting the petition on 9-6-2009 interim prohibitory order was passed restraining the respondent No.1 from taking any adverse action in respect of employment of petitioners Nos.2 and 3.

4. Respondents filed their comments on main and counter-affidavit on stay application. The respondents have denied the allegations levelled against them. Only bald and vague allegations have been alleged and no specific instance of unfair labour practice has been quoted in the petition. It is stated by respondent No.1 that they are being pressurized by petitioner No.1-Union and respondent No.4. Both of them have submitted charter of demands and are compelling the management to accept their demands. So far as the warning letters, dated 22-5-2009 and 2-6-2009 of the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are concerned it is stated by the respondents that the letters were issued to them on the ground of misconduct and not by way of other unfair labour practice.

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

6. No doubt the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are office-bearers of the union but under the cover of trade union activities they are not supposed to misbehave with the management officials or to use management vehicle without obtaining their permission. The allegation in the warning letters is clear that Muhammad Mushtaq, petitioner No.2 on 21-5-2009 at about 1500 used vehicle No.AHY-480 Suzuki Cultus without permission from the management and Mubin Ali petitioner No.3 forcibly entered in the office of Abdul Wasey Atif, Admin. Officer when he was busy and misbehaved with him shouting at him and used abusive language. Looking into these acts the petitioners were served warning letters, which is requirement of smooth running of the establishment, as such it cannot be termed as unfair labour practice. However, the respondent No.1-Management is directed not to take any further action against petitioners Nos.2 and 3 in respect of above warning letters but if in future any act of misconduct is played the management will be at liberty, 'to take action against them.

7. It is worth to mention here that the respondent No.1 has submitted a statement annexed therewith copy of settlement dated 20-6-2009, signed between the petitioner No.1 Union and the Management of respondent No.1 establishment and since the parties have executed a settlement between them as such there is no need to go through the further discussion in the matter. With these observations the stay application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC(P&F) Regulations, 1973 as well as main) petition stand disposed of. H.B.T./12/NIRC Order accordingly.