1998 PLP 62 (PLC)

Abadur Rehman for Respondent. This is a petition under section 22A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969, filed by Akhter Hussain, Assistant Plant Operator, Movement No. II, Operation Department, Attock Refinery Limited Rawalpindi, alleging that he has 30 years service at his credit as Plant Operator and he is an active member of Attock Refinery Workers Union (Regd.) acting as C.B.A. According to him he has been nominated as Representative for the Workers Participation Fund Committee and due to his activities he is being victimised by the respondent management by serving him with a show-cause notice on an allegation for which he has got no concern at all. Through this petition he has prayed that the direction be issued to the respondent not to commit any act of unfair labour practice against him by way of dismissal, discharge, removal, termination and transfer and the show cause notice issued to him be set aside as the same is based upon unfair labour practice:

2. The respondent filed the written statement raising certain preliminary objections and contested this petition. It is alleged by the respondent that the petition does not fall within the ambit of section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969 as no unfair labour has been committed by the respondent nor it is likely to be committed. According to respondent, a legal procedure has been adopted by serving show-cause notice to the petitioner against a specific allegation and it cannot be said to be unfair labour practice.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and perused the record and have gone through the relevant record produced before him.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that an F.I.R. was got registered by the respondent against one Akhter Zaman Driver, from the contents of the F.I.R. it is crystal clear that the petitioner has got no concern with the allegations levelled against the said driver It is argued that the petitioner is being falsely implicated in this incident due to his trade union activities being representative of union for the workers participation funds committee.

5. In nut-shell it is urged that the case of the petitioner is fully covered under section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969 as by serving a show-cause notice on fictitious allegations against the petitioner, unfair labour practice is likely to be committed, therefore, the petitioner is justified to approach this forum for redress of his grievance.

6. It is next contended that the allegation levelled against the petitioner is a question of fact which could only be determined and ascertained after adducing evidence, therefore, unless the charge is proved through evidence, the petitioner cannot be victimised and the present act of the respondents amounts to unfair labour practice. With these submissions it is urged that the petition be accepted and show-cause notice be set aside and respondents be restrained from adopting measures of unfair labour practice.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents vehemently refuted the above contention and argued that the respondent management is holding inquiry against the petitioner on a specific allegation and they cannot be restrained from the lawful procedure adopted nor the petition is covered in the definition of unfair labour practice as narrated in section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969. It is argued that the service of show-cause notice and holding inquiry in accordance with law cannot be termed to be unfair labour practice. It is further pointed out that contention of the petitioner that he is being victimised being representative of the Workers Participation Fund Committee, is devoid of force as no such meeting has been held in this respect so far by the petitioner with the respondent. In support of his pleading he has also submitted an affidavit on behalf of the representative of the respondent showing that ever since the nomination of Akhter Hussain Shah as the Trustee of the Fund Committee not a single meeting of the Trustee has been held so far nor any discussion with regard to the distribution of profit has taken place with any trustee including the petitioner representing the worker side. With these submissions the learned counsel for the respondent management maintained that the present petition is premature and is just an attempt to avoid the inquiry held against him regarding specific allegation levelled against him.

8. After giving careful thought to the respective contentions of both the counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the respondent has adopted the required procedure in holding an inquiry against the petitioner for a specific allegation and serving of show-cause notice is also part of that inquiry. The petitioner has also submitted reply to the show-cause notice and is facing inquiry and to my mind it does not amount to unfair labour practice. Guidance in this behalf is sought from 1994 PLC 131, 1988 PLC 884, 1989 PLC 447 and 1994 PLC 35, where it is clearly observed that initiation of disciplinary proceedings was lawful function of Industrial and Commercial establishment and it would not lead to any presumption to unfair labour practice on the part of employer. Employer has a right to hold an inquiry against its employees who are allegedly guilty of misconduct and such right of the employer could not be curbed or taken away merely because employee happened to be an office-bearer of any union.

9. In view of the above discussion I have come to the conclusion that the present petition brought by the petitioner is not maintainable and being devoid of force is liable to be dismissed, which is accordingly dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. A. A./290/N.I. R.C. Application dismissed.