2000 PLP 258 (PLC)

Date of hearing; 24th December, 1998 This order will dispose of the Application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations, 1973 filed by the Jabees Employees' Union through its General Secretary supported by his affidavit with prayer to restrain the respondents or persons connected with them from removing/discharging/dismissing the officers and active members of the union from employment as a measure of victimization and‑unfair labour practice.

2. On 19-10-1998 this Bench of Commission had passed interim prohibitory order on the above said application directing the respondents not to remove or dismiss the officers and active members of the petitioner union till the next date.

3. The respondents were served and they filed application for antedating the case. They filed comments and counter‑affidavit raising objections about the maintainability of the case and the applicant has filed rejoinder.

4. I have heard the arguments of Mr. S.P. Lodhi, learned Representative for the applicant and Mr. Shaikh Haider Bux, learned Advocate for the respondents.

5. Mr. 'S.P. Lodhi, learned Representative has contended that the respondents management was not giving the' benefits to the workers for which the applicant union raised hue and cry which annoyed the respondent establishment and they started victimizing the office‑bearers of the applicant and harassing them. It was further contended by the learned Representative for the applicant that due to trade union activities the respondents management has issued charge‑sheet to office‑bearers and active members of applicant union which amounts to act of unfair labour practice. It was further contended that under section 22(12)(b) of the I.R.O., 1969, the C.B.A. can represent the workmen in any proceedings as such this application is maintainable and the N.I.R.C. having the jurisdiction of unfair labour practice can interfere in the matter. He, therefore, further contended that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief as such the interim prohibitory order granted on 19‑10‑1998 be confirmed.

6. Mr. Shaikh Haider Bux, learned Advocate for the respondents contended that from the petition itself no case of unfair labour practice has been made out by the applicant as there is no specific allegation of unfair labour practice against the respondents. He has further contended that issuance of charge‑sheet to any of the employee is not an act of unfair labour practice as it is a legal right of the employer which cannot be taken away by any Court of law. The persons against whom the charge‑sheets have been issued are working in the respondent establishment since last 10 years and if there was any enmity against them due to their trade union activities, they would have been issued charge‑sheets earlier. He has further contended that no specific instance in the shape of detail of incident has been, shown in the petition as such the petition is not maintainable having no allegation of unfair labour practice as such the N.I.R.C. has no jurisdiction to entertain the same; therefore, the application be dismissed and the interim prohibitory order passed by this Bench of Commission on 19‑10‑1998 be recalled. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents has placed his reliance on 1988 PLC 884, 1994 PLC 35 and 1998 PLC 62.

7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Mr. S.P. Lodhi, learned representative for the applicant and Mr. Shaikh Haider Bux, learned Advocate for the respondents and have gone through their pleadings.

8. The main objection of the respondents on the maintainability of the petition is that no specific instance or allegation of unfair labour practice has been mentioned in the entire petition by the applicant union which falls within the ambit of section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969 and in absence of allegation of unfair labour practice, the petition is not maintainable and this Bench of N.I.R.C. has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. They have also stated that issuance of charge‑sheet is prerogative of the management which cannot be curbed and in support of their contention, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon some citations/case‑lave which are distinguishable from the present case.

9. It has been contended that due to pursuance of the applicant union to make payment of legal rights and benefit to the workers including payment of special allowance, the respondents are annoyed with the office‑bearers and active members of the union and have issued charge‑sheets to them.

10. I have also gone through the correspondence made by the union to the respondents establishment which indicates that the benefits and legal rights of the workers are being denied by the management. There is nothing on record by way of documentary proof from the respondent's side to show the denial of the reported claims of the applicant union. The contention that the charge‑sheets were issued because of the trade union activities can only be decided on the basis of evidence. The applicant has thus made out a prima facie case for grant of prohibitory order as such I allow application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations, 1973 and confirm the interim prohibitory order passed by this Bench of Commission on 19‑10‑1998. The parties are directed to adduce their evidence. To come up on 25‑1‑1999 for filing affidavit‑in‑evidence by applicant. H.B.T./4‑NIRC Application granted.