1993 PLP 8 (PLC)

3. Subsequently, however, this petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 12‑1‑1991 at Peshawar. The petitioner then on 22‑5‑1990 also filed another petition bearing No. 4A(60)/90 in which he has alleged that he had not been granted an award of Rs. 500 due to his trade union activities besides placing the petitioner under suspension and that respondent be refrained from continuing illegal activities of unfair labour practice.

4. The petitioner also went to the Peshawar High Court in Writ Petition No.1289 of 1991 where the Division Bench of that High Court directed to decide the case of the petitioner within two months positively besides ordering his immediate resumption of duty on the basis of concession.

5. He further alleges that the elections of the union were held on 5‑12‑1991 at divisional level and on 15‑2‑1992 at the central body level. He was successful at the central level. The respondent was therefore able to bring witnesses from the group who belonged to the opposite group. He therefore, apprehends that on the basis of the so‑called enquiry the, respondents will commit unfair labour practice by way of dismissal, termination or removal r from employment and would cause injury to his employment.

6. I have heard detailed arguments of both the parties in this matter.

7. This petition is liable to dismissal because (a) it has been filed after Petition No.4A(11)/90 with the same prayer had been earlier dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner was barred from bringing the same application between the same parties and on the same cause of action which had already been decided, for decision again by this Commission. (b) it is not maintainable, as abusing, threatening to kill and shoot dead ones officer over the telephone and insulting and abusing the officer at his residence and firing pistol shots to criminally intimidate him is not a trade union activity. I do not believe the statement of the petitioner that this is a totally false allegation. I have read the statement of Abdul Hamid the Chief Superintendent, Telegraph Office, Peshawar on oath in the Court of trial Magisistrate, Peshawar. The Chief Superintendent withstood the cross‑examination well. I do not find anything contradictory in his cross‑examination; (c) a reasonable and a prima facie case of unfair labour had to be made ,out by the petitioner which has not been done. No document warranting any trade union activity of the petitioner has been shown on or immediately before 25‑6‑1989 to warrant the action of Abdul Hamid, Chief Superintendent in suddenly going to the police to lodge a FIR under sections 148, 149 and 506, P.P.C. On the other hand it is a recorded fact that petitioner was transferred to Kohat Road Telegraph Office, Peshawar on 24‑6‑1989. The next day he is alleged to have abused the Chief Superintendent over the telephone and went to his residence alongwith four others and abused and insulted him, extended threats to him at his house. He is also stated to have fired pistol shots in the air and have also extended threats of causing death of the Chief Superintendent. Thus the petitioner was allegedly incensed by his transfer to Kohat Road In reply to my, question whether he had a licence to keep a pistol, he replied in the affirmative. (d) giving of a charge‑sheet and holding an enquiry into a charge totally unconnected with unfair labour practice does not warrant any intervention by NIRC, being not an unfair labour practice; (e) apart from a bald assertion that the petitioner is an active trade unionist and he has been charge‑sheeted for his trade union activities the petitioner had not been able to show anything except that he was a trade union councillor in the voters' list dated 28‑7‑1987 which does not establish unfair labour practice. As held in a line of authorities bare allegations in the absence of specific act and circumstances are not sufficient to establish unfair labour practice. In this connection authorities like 1988 PLC 923, 1969 PLC 238, 1969 PLC 439, 1969 PLC 691, 1974 PLC 69, 1975 PLC 24, 1975 PLC 56, 1987 PLC 358 could be cited; (f) the fad that he was a councillor of a CBA like so many other councillors and officers of the union does not in itself lead to the conclusion that he was charge‑sheeted only for his trade union activities. There has lately been a tendency to allege unfair labour practice on the basis of universal malice of employer against the trade unionists. The Supreme court has held that the grievance has to be of a specific person against a specified act, and I submit, not due to a general allegation of universal malice due to trade union activities, which are not specifically related to the time frame, when the alleged offence occurred. Further, in this connection the Supreme Court stated that it was for a person alleging that action has been taken mala fide to show that the person responsible for taking the action has been motivated by any one of the considerations speed by their Lordships and mere allegation that action has been taken wrongly is not sufficient to establish a case of mala fides, nor can a case of mala fides be established on the basis of universal malice against a particular class or section of the people. Hamoodur Rehman, C, J. said:‑‑ "In order to establish a case of mala fides, some such spec allegation is necessary and it must be supported by some prima facie proof to justify the Court to call upon the other side to produce evidence in its possession." (PLD 1974 SC 151)

8. On the basis of above I am of the considered opinion that this petition is not maintainable and is therefore, dismissed under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. H.B.T./185/NIRC Petition dismissed.