2006 PLP 509 (PLC)

ALI NAWAZ A. CHANNA (MEMBER).

Alt the abovementioned five petitions are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and law involved in all the five petitions are same.

2. The five petitioners named above have filed these petitions under section 49(4)(e) of I.R.O., 2002 with the allegations that they are working in the hotel of respondents as Front Office Cashiers and now the respondents by their circular dated 5-7-2003 have combined the job of Receptionist/Front Office Cashier and their nomenclature is being changed and they are being designated as officer with mala fide motive so that the petitioners may not become worker and thereby discontinue their trade union activities. The petitioners have alleged that circular of the respondents is not only mala fide aimed at victimizing and harassing the petitioners but is also an act of unfair labour practice as it will amount to interference in trade union activities of the petitioners. The petitioners have alleged that with new assignment they would become officers and would cease to be workers and therefore, they will be deprived of many facilities and incentives which they used to get as workers. They have alleged that the respondents are deadly against the conception of union and to achieve their purpose they have terminated dismissed many office-bearers of their union and now they by this way want to get rid of petitioners so that they may not carry out their trade union activities any more. They have prayed that circular may be declared as an act of unfair labour practice and respondents may be restrained from giving effect to the said circular

3. The respondents filed written comments in which they have denied various claims of the petitioners. They stated that they are not against the formation of trade union whereas, according to them, trade unions exist in their establishment since very long and they have been doing their trade union activities. They have stated that hotel management formulated a policy for the facility of customers to combine the post of Front Office Cashier/Receptionist so as to reline the customers to appear in queue before the cashier. They have stated that this practice is in vogue throughout the world that this policy successfully has been implemented in Pearl Continental Hotel Bhurban and Pearl Continental Hotel, Lahore. They have stated that this is reorganization of hotel administration in their hotel and it is right and prerogative of the management to organize and reorganize its establishment in a way, better beneficial for their hotel as well as customers. They have stated that they have not committed any act of unfair labour practice nor they have issued the circular in order to harass, victimize or to deprive the petitioners of any right and facility. They have stated that the petitions filed by the petitioners are not maintainable as no ingredient and element of unfair labour practice has been pleaded by the petitioners in their respective petitions. They have also taken other legal objections.

4. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned Advocate for the respondents on stay application as well as maintainability of the petitions. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and the documents filed by them.

5. The learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that the petitioners have challenged the circular on the ground of unfair labour practice but he has failed to justify his argument, by any cogent reason. On the other hand the respondents have stated that circular has been issued as uniform policy which has been successfully implemented at Pearl Continental Bhurban and Lahore. In such circumstances it does not appear to me that this circular is a discriminatory act aimed at only targeting the present petitioners. There is no controversion of the facts by the petitioners that this circular has been successfully implemented at Pearl Continental Hotel, Bhurban and Pearl Continental Hotel Lahore. If Front Office Cashiers of Bhurban and Lahore have accepted this arrangement then present petitioners have also no valid reason to challenge it on the ground of unfair labour practice and on the ground of mala fides. The fact that this type of arrangement is in vogue throughout the world is, also not controverted by the petitioners in any way whatsoever. Learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that this circular is aimed at depriving the petitioners from carrying out their lawful trade union activities as with their change of nomenclature they will become officers and cannot carry out their trade union activities. Again this version has no force. The petitioners are not office-bearers of any trade union. It is stated that they are only active members of trade union. Merely being active member is no ground for deprivation of trade union activities. As an ordinary member they cannot be taking any active part in the trade union activities, whereas it will be the function of office-bearers. Had the respondents any intention to curb the trade union activities of the union then they could have targeted its office-bearers and not an ordinary member. The version of the petitioners that they will be deprived of their trade union activities, has therefore, no force at all.

6. The learned Advocate for the respondents then argued that the petitioners have failed to specify the element of unfair labour practice having been committed by the respondents. He argued that mere general and bald type of allegations will not constituted acts of unfair labour practice. This contention of learned Advocate for the respondents has sufficient force. Mere issuing of a circular which is a general in type and not targeting a particular person or group of persons cannot be said to be an act of unfair labour practice. As already stated this circular does not discriminate the petitioners with any other person so that it could be held to be an act of unfair labour practice.

7. The learned Advocate for the petitioners then argued that as ordinary worker the petitioners will be entitled to many facilities but with the change of their nomenclature they will be deprived of those facilities. On the other hand the learned Advocate for the respondents argued that after combination of both the posts, the petitioners will be given many incentives such as they will be promoted and they will be given raised salary thereby they will be adequately compensated. Even otherwise the version of the petitioners has no force as one has to rise above and has to accept promotion when it is due. One has not to remain in the same capacity for whole life. If rise is given to anyone, in my opinion, it will be in his interest as his position will be raised, not lowered. Even otherwise the trade union activities will be dependent upon the work being performed by any person and not upon his designation. If the petitioners on their promotion will be assigned manual and clerical work, they will continue to be worker and consequently can do the trade union activities. Merely giving a designation of officer without raise in their salaries and without assigning them duties of officer, they will not become officer to be deprived of union activities.

8. The petitioners as already stated have not even produced a letter from the "General Secretary or the President of their union to show as to what type of duties have been assigned to them and what type of duties they are performing towards their trade union. This also falsifies the version of petitioners that they are doing any trade union activities. Without such activities it cannot be said that the petitioners are doing trade union activities or that the respondents, due to their trade union activities want to curtail their union activities. On this score the petitions of the petitioners are not maintainable. In view of what has been discussed above I have come to a conclusion that the petitions of the petitioners are devoid of any instance of unfair labour practice and that the circular issued by the respondents is not an act of unfair labour practice but is an act towards the reorganization and rearrangement of hotel of the respondents. Since the petitions are devoid of unfair labour practice, they are not maintainable in law. Accordingly, I dismiss all the petitions of the petitioners along with stay application. H.B.T./109/N.I.R.C.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petitions dismisse