1987 PLP 129 (PLC)

Aggrieved by the aforementioned orders of N.I.R.C. the petitioners (employer) filed this constitutional petition.

3. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners was that the transfer orders of the employees stood already implemented, the N.I.R.C. had no jurisdiction to suspend the operation of these orders could only proceed on the subsequent complaint lodged by P.I.D.B. Employees' Union, in respect of the alleged unfair labour practice committed by the employer. It was further submitted that an administrative order of transfer, in accordance with the terms and conditions of employees does not amount to unfair labour practice, nor P. I. D. B. Employees Union as C. B. A. , could maintain complaint, before the N.I.R.C. to launch criminal proceedings against the employer. In support of his submission learned counsel for petitioner relied on Lever Brothers Pakistan Ltd. v. Muhammad Suleman and others 1984 P L C 115 and Messrs National Cement Industries Ltd. v. National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad and another 1986 P L C 105.

4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the purported action of the management to transfer office‑bearers of P.I.D.B. Employees Union, was a device to disband the union activities and amounted to unfair labour practice committed by the employer. It was submitted that the application filed before the N. I. R. C. for the redress of their grievance was competent, as the employees were not served with orders of their transfer and continued to perform their duties even after the service of relieving orders on them. Learned counsel referred to endorsement on relieving orders to show that they were not relieved. It was next argued that the N. I. R. C. is competent to take cognizance of apprehended unfair labour practice resorted to, by the employer and pass prohibitory order. He also relied on Lever Brothers (Pakistan) Ltd. v. Senior Member, National Industrial Relations Commission and another P L D 1986 Lah. 90) in support of his submissions.

5. I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant documents on the file. Learned counsel for the parties are at one, that if the alleged unfair labour practice has not taken place, the N.I.R.C. has jurisdiction' to pass prohibitory interim order. On the contrary if the action taken has been implemented or has taken its effect, the N.I.R.C. could only inquire into the complaint and award punishment, if ultimately, the party complained against is found guilty of committing unfair labour practice, the N.I.R.C. is also empowered to re‑instate the employees. In the instant case the perusal of endorsement on the relieving order, dated 22‑6‑1985 shows that the employees had proceeded on leave and were to be relieved on resuming their duties after availing leave. The petitioners brought nothing on the file to establish that the employees had availed their leave, and handing over or taking charge had taken place. On the other hand employees maintained that they had been performing their duties. It appears that the employees continued in their appointments until the order of N.I.R.C. was suspended by this Court on 1‑12‑1985. In my view, the case of the employees stood squarely covered under Regulation 32 (2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973. The provision of Regulation No.32 relevant to extent is reproduced as under: "32(2): Where a case of unfair labour practice is likely to occur, the Commission may take the following measures:‑ (a) ............................................................. (b) ............................................................. (c) Advise, direct or prohibit all or any of the connected persons to do or refrain from doing any act or to conduct themselves or their affairs in a manner calculated to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practice. (d) (e) Initiate security proceedings in, order to, prevent the occurrence of an unfair labour practice." It means, that where a case of unfair labour practice is likely to occur, the commission has the jurisdiction to pass prohibitory order. The Lever Brothers (Pakistan) Ltd's. case cited by the learned counsel for the parties and Messrs National Cement Industries case relied upon by the petitioners, are not at variance with the above proposition of law. Undoubtedly, the impugned orders of N.I.R.C. are interim orders) and it is well‑established that this Court has never favored interference with interim orders of the Tribunals in writ jurisdiction except in cases where the Courts or Tribunals had no jurisdiction at all. The determination of the next contention of petitioner's counsel, as to whether, the order of transfer in the circumstances of the case amounted to unfair labour practice or the employees union could maintain the application, would pre‑empt N. I. R. C's. decision on merits touching factual aspect of the case, I 9m, therefore, not inclined to embark upon the exercise particularly when I have held that the N. I. R. C. had the jurisdiction to pass the impugned orders.

6. In the result I find no substance in this writ petition and dismiss it with no order as to costs. A. A. Petition dismissed.