1989 PLP 439 (PLC)

‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 25‑A & 22‑A‑‑When an employee had been charge‑sheeted and an inquiry started against him, National Industrial Relations Commission could not act as inquiry officer and employees should wait for result of inquiry. Malik Mehrban for Petitioner. Saleem Baig for Respondent. This application under section 22‑A(b)(g) read with Regulation 32 of this NIRC (Procedure & Functions) Regulations, 1973 has been submitted by Ch. Ghulam Muhammad, General Secretary WASA Labour Alliance, WASA. (LDA), Lahore against the Director (Admn.) WASH, (LDA), Lahore. The petitioner has referred to the formation of the union and the electron of its office_ bearers and its certification as CBA, for the establishment w.e.f. 24‑10‑1984. The petitioner has traced the history of Industrial Relations w.e.f. 1985 to 1986 and, has referred to the non‑implementation of agreed demands by the respondents and their applications to different authorities but not the NIRC.

2. He has sated that on 12‑10‑1986 the respondent called Altaf Hussain Mirza, Patron‑in‑Chief and Mirza Rafique, Senior Vice‑President and threatened them that they could not succeed in getting workers demands accepted and 'implemented and further threatened that the behaviour of Muhammad Rashid Abbasi, Chairman and Rehmat Masih, Executive Member was intolerable and if they did not leave the Trade Union activities they will have to face the dire consequences. He further threatened to oppose the petitioner union in the coming referendum in the month of November, 1986. It has further been stated that respondent interfered in the ballot and opposed the petitioner union and the Petitioner's union was defeated. It has been stated that Muhammad Rashid Abbasi, Chairman of the Union and Rehmat Masih, Executive Member of the Union were charge‑sheeted on 4‑12‑1986 to which they submitted their replies. Raja Muhammad Afzal, Publicity Secretary has been transferred on account of trade union activities. It has been prayed that this petition may be accepted and the Chairman Muhammad Rashid Abbasi and Rahmat Masih, Executive Member of the union may not be dismissed till finalization of this case.

3. I have heard the arguments of both the learned Counsels. The learned Counsel for the respondent has raised a number of preliminary objections stating that the petition under section 22‑A(b)(g) was not maintainable and that no grievance notice under section 25‑A has been served on the management. It has been stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to move the present petition as he has not been authorised by the aggrieved employees in this regard, nor the petition is signed by the aggrieved persons. It was further stated by the learned Counsel for the respondent that the stay on the same allegation and the factual assertions has already been vacated by the Commission, on 28‑3‑1987, and as such the present petition was barred. The initiation of disciplinary proceedings is the right guaranteed to the employer and the petition was designed merely to obtain an injunction which is premature in law.

4. The respondent denied the allegation of unfair labour practice. He submitted that Raja Muhammad Afzal has been transferred alongwith 18 employees and that his transfer was affected in routine and is a normal feature in the respondent Department. He stated that the transfer was effected on 18‑2‑1986, while disciplinary action was initiated on 4‑12‑1986. He stated that Mr. Altaf Hussain Mirza, Patron‑in‑Chief and Mirza Rafique, Senior Vice‑President were never called by the respondent on 12‑10‑1986, nor were they threatened in any manner nor asked to leave their trade union activities. No complaint was filed by them for this allegation of unfair labour practice before the NIRC. The employees have been charged with allegation that constitute gross misconduct under the Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1975. Enquiry has been held in their cases. 5.The learned counsel for the petitioner in addition to oral arguments submitted additional arguments saying that Mr. Raja Muhammad Afzal, Publicity Secretary of Union has been transferred on account of their trade unions activities. He has referred to the case law reported in P L D 1986 Lah. 90 in the case of Lever Brothers Pakistan Limited v. The Senior Member National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad. He further stated that these employees have been involved in different cases in order to transfer them from their original place of work. He further stated that the charges in the charge‑sheet were vague and ambiguous and do not fall under misconduct.. 6, I find that the petitioner in paras. 1 to 13 of the petition has referred to the history of relations between them and the management and it has nothing to do with the present case. In para. 14, he has referred to the incident of 12‑10‑1986, when the respondent called the Patron‑in‑Chief and Senior Vice-President and threatened them. The learned Counsel for the respondent has denied that they were ever called on 12‑10‑1986 or threatened in any manner. I find that the petitioner cannot prove any act of unfair labour practice on the part of the management by simply stating that the respondent threatened him. It was further stated that the respondent interfered in the ballot and opposed the A petitioner union. It is not clear from this para as to how the respondent interfered in the ballot. This allegation is vague. Even if he had interfered m the referendum held in November, 1986 a complaint of unfair labour practice could have been filed by them before the Commission.

7. The management has the right to transfer its employees in the interest of administration and office‑bearers of the union cannot be exempted from such transfers. The learned Counsel for the respondent has stated that Muhammad Afzal has been transferred alongwith 18 other employees. The employees have g been charge‑sheeted for misconduct and enquiry is pending against them. The commission cannot act, as Enquiry Officer and the petitioners therefore should wait for the result of the enquiry. The petition is therefore premature and is dismissed. The stay order dated 29‑3‑1987 is recalled. M.Y.H./131/NIRC Petition dismissed.