2008 PLP 96 (PLC)

GHULAM NAUMAN SHAIKH (MEMBER).

This is a petition under sections 49(4)(e), 63 of I.R.O., 2002 along with an application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulation, 1973 filed by the petitioner union against the respondents.

1. The facts of the case as stated in the petition are that the petitioner is registered trade union and CBA in the respondents establishment, where 1500 workmen are employed permanently on permanent jobs in connection with manufacturing of tyres as per the list attached and marked as Annexure "A/3" and Annexure "A/4". The entire factory, plant, land, machinery. Electric and Gas Installation are owned, managed and controlled by the management of the respondent. It is alleged that the workers mentioned in the list attached and marked as Annexure "A/5" have been locked out illegally on or after 14-7-2007. The workers as per Annexure "A/4" are being locked out every day, since 14th day of July 2006. It is alleged that the respondents did not issue appointment letters to the workers as per Annexure "A/4" at the time of appointment, though took signatures on written/printed/blank papers, vouchers, etc. and continued taking signatures during the course of employment. It is submitted that the petitioner union earlier had served notice of demand, conciliation notice, strike notice and thereafter resorted to strike, which resulted in settlement for workers as per Annexures "A/3" and "A/4". Settlement is attached and marked as Annexures "A/6" and "A/7". The petitioner union had also filed a case under section 49(4)(e) read with section 63 along with an application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973, in which ad interim order was passed attached and marked as Annexure "A/8", which case was latter on withdrawn in view of the settlement. It is submitted that workers as per Annexure "A/3" were members of the petitioner union and their monthly subscription is being deducted out of their monthly wages. The petitioner union enrolled the workers as per Annexure "A/4" as members of the union and wrote a letter to the respondent company to deduct union monthly subscription as per demand statement/authority letter given by 695 workers, out of list Annexure "A/4", the letter, dated 24-8-2006 is attached and marked as Annexure "A/9", but the respondent did not deduct, as such the petitioner union continued collecting unions subscription directly in person through the unions nominated persons and are continuing the same till this day. The respondents never raised any objection to the unions subscription collection in person on the day of disbursement of wages. It is alleged that the respondents management committed acts of unfair labour practice and also issued charge sheets to two Assistant Finance Secretaries of the union. The petitioner union filed a case under sections 33, 21 and 63 of I.R.O., 2002 before the Honourable IVth Sindh Labour Court Karachi on 13th day of July, 2007, copy attached and marked as Annexure "A/10", which is pending. The petitioner union has also issued reminder on 10-7-2007 for collection/deduction of unions monthly subscription from monthly wages, copy attached and marked as Annexure "A/11". It is alleged that respondent started harassing, coercing, pressurizing the office-bearers/members of the union due to filing the Industrial dispute before the Honourable IVth Sindh Labour Court Karachi. The respondents orally removed/lockout workers as per list Annexure "A/5 on 14th, 15th, 16th July-2007 and are threatening to lockout workers, union office-bearers due to pendency of the said dispute. It is alleged that respondents management always take interest in unions elections and referendum and they make sure that the persons of their choice are elected as office-bearers of the petitioner union. The unions elections are ahead, therefore, the respondents management started making queries from the members of the union, as to whom they will vote against the panel of management. The pressure is particularly on members as per Annexure "A/4". The workers, who do not answer to support management panel, stand locked out without any reason and also without written termination letter. The lockout resorted by the management as per Annexure "A/5" is continuing and are likely further lockout of workers. The petitioners' union General Secretary enquired from the IR and Factory Manager, the reason of lockout/removal of workers as per oral orders, but he could not give satisfactory answer, which is clear indication of lockout of the workers due to filing of case before the Honourable IVth Labour Court Karachi and also to discourage members of union from continuing membership and payment of unions monthly subscription. It is alleged that on 7-7-2007 at about 10-30 a.m. the respondent No.2 called the General Secretary for a meeting, who along with other office-bearers went to see him. The respondent No.2 insisted in the meeting to cancel the membership of the workers as per Annexure "A/4" and also stop collection of unions monthly subscription and threatened to remove members/office-bearers of the union, if the union continued with their membership and did not stop the collection of unions subscription. He also argued that the union can only represent the workers, who cast their votes in their favour in the last referendum. The management of the respondent also pressurized the members of the union to give up the unions' membership. It is alleged that again on 16-7-2007, 17-7-2007 and 18-7-2007 the union members are being asked to withdraw the case under sections 33, 21 and 63 of I.R.O., 2002, but the majority members did not agree. Ultimately the respondent No.2 and other management persons pressurized to change the General Secretary of the petitioner union, else the management shall take serious action against the members and concerned office-bearers of the union. The interference in unions' affairs in continuing. It is prayed to deal with the acts of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents and to restrain the respondents from transferring, terminating, dismissing, removing and lockout of the workers as per Annexures "A/3" and "A/4", to hold the lockout of workers as per Annexure A/5, illegal, mala fide and against natural justice, amounts to an act of unfair labour practice and to restrain the respondents from interfering in the affairs of the petitioner union in any manner.

2. The respondent filed reply statement with preliminary legal objections and counter affidavit. Legal objections raised are that the petitioner union is registered with the Provincial Registrar of Trade Unions, Government of Sindh, as such it has no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of NIRC in terms of decision of the Division Bench of the Karachi High Court reported in 2002 PLC 274, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. The petition is also not maintainable as on the same facts and grounds the petitioner union has earlier in point of time on 13-7-2007 filed case No.2 of 2007 under section 33 of I.R.O., 2002 in the IVth Sindh Labour Court Karachi, where the issue is sub judice. This is to avoid multiplicity of, the proceedings and conflict of decisions as both the judicial forums have separate appellate forums. The proceedings in terms of section 49(4)(e) of I.R.O., 2002 are to be treated as if in terms of section 33 of I.R.O., 2002. These proceedings provide for enforcement of pre-determined and pre-existing rights and not for adjudication and for determination of the rights. The question as to whether the persons listed by the petitioner union in Annexures "A/3", "A/4" and "A/5" are employees of the respondents establishment or that of independent contractor Messrs M.M. Associates are disputed questions of facts, which require adjudication and determination and cannot be resolved in the present proceedings. The union and/or more specifically the persons listed in Annexures "A/3", "A/4" and "A/5" have first to approach the competent Court of law and get this established that they are employees of General. Tyre and Rubber Company of Pakistan Ltd. Only then they become Members of the petitioner union. In absence of any findings of a Court of law declaring the employees listed in Annexures "A/3", "A/4" and "A/5' as employees of General Tyre and Rubber Company of Pakistan Ltd. it is not open for the persons so listed in the Annexures to get themselves become members of the petitioner union, nor for that matter the petitioner union is competent to espouse their cause in the Commission. The petitioner union is illegally constituted body, as it is constituted of employees not engaged in the respondents establishment as provided in the registered constitution of the union and also includes persons employed by the independent contractor, Messrs M.M. Associates. The petition is further not maintainable in law because none of the persons listed in Annexures "A/3"., "A/4" and "A/5" have filed any documents along with the petition to establish the bond of relationship of employer and the employees between them and the respondents establishment. The prayer made by the petitioner union for restraining the respondents to transfer, terminate, dismiss or remove and/or affect lockout in respect of persons listed in Annexures "A/3", "A/4" and "A/5" is a vague and general prayer. The prayer is direct infringement of the employer's right mentioned under section 83(2) and under Schedule II of I.R.O., 2002 to conduct the business, to manage, control and use the property of his enterprise and conduct his business in any manner considered by him and right to use available resources including human resources efficiently and effectively in the best interest of enterprise. Prayer made by the petitioner union is contrary to the provisions of law and, as such, of no legal effect.' The petition under section 49(4)(e) of the I.R.O., 2002 is also not maintainable as no Industrial Dispute of any nature has been raised, nor the same is pending in the Labour Court or before the conciliation officer. No failure of conciliation has taken place. Prayer of interim relief is outside the ambit of law and is barred by provisions of section 49(4)(e) of I.R.O., 2002. On merits of the case it is submitted that claim of the petitioner that the respondent have employed 1500 workmen is not factually correct. It is denied that the respondent No.2 is notified Factory Manager. It is submitted that Syed Najam Ahmed Senior Personnel Executive is presently notified Manager under Factories Act, 1934. It is denied that supervisors and Managers of the respondents control and administer the entire process of tyre manufacturing. It is submitted that persons mentioned in Annexures "A/3", "A/4" and "A/5" are not employed by the respondent No.1 establishment nor they are working under the control and supervision of respondents nor are paid by the respondents. No appointment letters or other document of any nature has been produced .by the petitioner union to establish any bond of relationship of employer and employees between the respondent No.1 and these persons listed in Annexures "A/3", "A/4" and "A/5". It is alleged that the petitioner union is making contradictory pleas. On one hand it claims that the persons listed in Annexures "A/3", "A/4" and "A/5' are employees of the respondent No.1, whereas the union has filed Annexure "A/7" at page 63, which is document, where the same General Secretary of the union has recognized the existence of contractors Messrs M.M Associates. This document falsifies the claim of the -petitioner union that the persons listed in Annexures "A/3', "A/4" and "A/5" are the employees of the respondent No.1 establishment. It is denied that the respondents have locked out workers listed in Annexure "A/5" since 14-7-2006. The instant petition to have been filed after lapse of more than 12 months of alleged lockout showing that claim is false and malicious and is belated and time-barred. None of the listed workers have served individual notice of grievance nor filed the petition in the Commission. For alleged lockout the remedy available is in terms of section 39 of I.R.O., 2002 before the Labour Court and not before the National Industrial Relations Commission. With regard to the claim of the petitioner union that the management of the respondent No.1 .have not issued letters of appointment to the workers listed in Annexures "A/3", "A/4" and "A/5" at the time of appointment overlooks the fact that at no stage in the past these individual persons had never alleged, nor filed. any case in any Court to the effect that they were employed by respondent No.1 and were working without any letter of appointment. This is an afterthought plea that the respondent No.1 took signatures/thumb impressions on printed or blank papers etc. and continued taking signatures during the course of employment, which is vehemently denied. It is submitted that memorandum of settlement was concluded between the petitioner union and respondents management on 11-9-2006 filed by the petitioner union as Annexure "A/6", whereas now the petitioner union is making allegations that the persons mentioned in Annexures "A/4" and "A/5" were illegally locked out on 14-7-2006. There is no mention of lockout nor reference to these persons listed in Annexures "A/4 and "A/5" in the settlement, dated 11-9-2006. The petitioner union in the memorandum of settlement, dated 11-9-2006 had given an undertaking not to raise or pursue directly or indirectly during the operative period of the settlement any demand or dispute involving financial commitment on the part of the company and to raise any further financial or non-financial demand during the subsistence of the settlement. It is denied that M.M Associates are employees of the respondent company and are not an independent contractor. With regard to earlier petition bearing Case No.4A(132) of 2006-L, it is submitted that the petitioner union has itself admitted and claimed that only 800 workers are working in the respondent No.1 establishment. It is alleged that the earlier petition was instituted with mala fide intention by the union only to coerce and pressurize the management for the purpose of acceptance of their demands, subsequently settled by the memorandum of settlement with the union. The proceedings were thereafter withdrawn by the union. It is submitted that in the list Annexure "A/3" filed by the same union in Case No.4A/(132) of 2006-L, the names of the persons now listed in Annexures "A/3" to "A/5" in the present petition were not mentioned nor claimed to be the members of the union, which further goes to show that present lists, Annexures "A/3" to "A/5" are false, fabricated and prepared with mala fide intention. The claim of the petitioner union that they have unearthed the number of persons listed in Annexure "A/4", while the workers listed in Annexure "A/3" were already members and the monthly subscription is deducted from their monthly wages is vehemently denied. With regard to Annexure "A/9" attached by the petitioner union for enrollment of 695 persons as members of the union under authority letter which has been attached, it is submitted that it is false and fabricated document. Regarding effecting check off of the persons listed in Annexures "A/3", "A/4" and "A/5" it is submitted that they were not employed by the respondents nor wages were paid by the respondents, therefore the management is not under any legal obligation to effect check off of any payment, as no payment/wages were made by the respondents management to these persons listed in Annexures "A/3", "A/4" and "A/5". It is submitted that this plea has also been taken up by the same union in their application No.02/2007 under section 33 of I.R.O., 2002 filed earlier in the IVth Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, where the matter is sub judice. The present subsequent petition is duplication of earlier pending proceedings. Allegation of committing act of unfair labour practice by issuing charge-sheets is denied. It is submitted that the charge-sheets were issued to Israr Ahmed Khan and Muhammad Boots. After charge-sheets, notices of enquiry were issued. After that enquires were, conducted and these two persons were found guilty, they were dismissed vide dismissal orders Annexures "R/2" and "R/3" and dismissal orders were sent to these persons through courier service vide Annexures "R/6" and "R/7". Allegation of the petitioner union that the respondents are harassing, coercing or pressurizing the members and office-bearers of the petitioner union due to filing of Industrial Dispute in IVth Sindh Labour Court is denied. It is submitted that the settlement has been signed on 11-9-2006 filed as Annexure "A/6". Thereafter, no Industrial dispute is pending. It is vehemently denied that the respondent management takes interest in union elections and referendum and makes sure that persons of their choice are elected as office-bearers of the union. It is submitted that the management is not aware as to when the next union elections are due. It is denied that the management is making queries from the members of the union as to whom they will vote. It is submitted that there is no panel of the management. Allegation of the petitioner union that pressure is exerted on the persons listed in Annexure "A/4" is denied. It is denied that the lockout of any person listed in Annexure "A/5" has been effected, as they being not employees of the respondents. It is denied that members of the union were pressurized to give up the union's membership. It is submitted that at no stage the General Secretary of the petitioner union raised any industrial dispute and no any industrial dispute is pending before any Court at Karachi. Only the case that has been filed by the Union bearing No.2 of 2007, in the IVth Sindh Labour Court Karachi in terms of section 33 of I.R.O., 2002, which has been filed only two days before the filing of the present proceedings in this Honourable Commission, is for enforcement of right and not for adjudication or for determination of industrial dispute. Allegation of the petitioner union about the alleged meeting on 7-7-2007 at 10-30 a.m. wherein respondent No.2 Shahid Ghazanfar called the General Secretary, is denied. It is submitted that Shahid Ghazanfar is not notified Manager under Factories Act, 1934. There was no occasion 'for the alleged meeting to be held on 7-7-2007 between the union and Shahid Ghazanfar. The allegations of the union that they were asked to cancel the membership of the persons listed in Annexure A/4 and or to stop collection of the unions' monthly subscription is denied. Likewise allegation that the union was asked only to register those workers, who cast their votes in favour of the management is also denied. Allegation of the petitioner union that on 16-7-2007, 17-7-2007 and 18-7-2007 the union was called upon to withdraw the case under section 33 of I.R.O., 2002 is denied. Allegation that the respondent No.2 had pressurized the union to change the General Secretary is denied. It is submitted that no lockout has been effected. No interference in affairs of the union has been made. No unfair labour practice has been committed. Transfers are effected only in view of requirement of work. Dismissal is effected only in case of commission of misconduct, for which charge-sheet is issued and enquiry is conducted. It is submitted that entire petition is misconceived and filed with mala fide intention.

3. Zahoor Ahmed Awan, General Secretary of the petitioner union filed affidavit-in-rejoinder.

4. I have heard the arguments of the Mr. Shafique Qureshi learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents.

5. Mr. Shafique Qureshi learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner union is registered and C.B.A. in the establishment of respondent No.1. There are 1500 members of the petitioner union. Out of them unions' monthly subscription of 700 workers mentioned in Annexure "A/3" is deducted from their salaries through check off. The petitioner union on 24-8-2006 submitted an application under section 21 of the I.R.O., 2002 to the notified Manager under Factories Act, 1934 of the respondent No.1 establishment for the deduction of monthly subscription under check off system of 695 workers out of Annexure "A/4" along with their authority letter Annexure "A/9". The respondent did not give reply to this application. Neither refused nor deducted monthly subscription. The petitioner union therefore nominated persons from time to time to collect union subscription directly from the members. The respondents never raised objection. There was therefore implied consent of the respondent. Further it is submitted by Mr. Shafique Qureshi learned advocate for the petitioner that the workers are said to be employees of contractor. Submission of the petitioner is that all these workers are employees of company and so-called contractor is employee of company. So-called contractor has no factory or establishment in premises of respondent No.1. These workers are working shoulder to shoulder under one roof in the factory premises on the machines owned, managed, controlled and supervised by the supervisors, foremen, Engineers and Managers of the respondent No.1. Raw material of manufactured tyres is being supplied by the respondent No.1. So also finished tyres are taken away by the company directly for marketing. All these workers as per Annexures "A/3" and "A/4" are performing the job in manufacturing process of tyres. The wages to the workers are paid out of sale proceeds of tyres. These workers are employed continuously for the last several years on the same job on which they are employed. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 did not issue appointment letters and Employees old age benefit cards etc. The petitioner is registered under I.R.O., 2002. It is union of workers employed with General Tyre. Mr. Shafique Qureshi learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to definitions of "Trade Union" under clause (xxix) of section 2 of I.R.O., 2002 and submits that "trade union" means any combination of workers. As to who has employed the workers, it is not mentioned in the trade union definition. Mr. Shafique Qureshi learned advocate for the petitioner has also referred to definitions of "Worker" and "Workmen" under clause (xxx) of section 2 of I.R.O., 2002 and submitted that word "any" is used. It includes all the workers. In support of this contention reference is made to PLD 1988 Supreme Court

53. It is contended that workers mentioned in Annexures "A/4", "A/5" and "A/6" are employed permanently on permanent jobs in the respondent No.1 establishment. Under section 3 of the I.R.O., 2002 subject to provisions of Article 17 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, workers have right to join any trade union. Petitioner union provides membership to all the workers employed in establishment of respondent No.1. Workers as per Annexure "A/4" joined the petitioner union and gave authority to Manager' to deduct monthly subscription out of their wages. Mr. Shafique Qureshi learned advocate for the petitioner has made reference to clause (5) of the constitution of the petitioner union at page No.116 relating to `Membership' and submitted that constitution of petitioner union is in consonance with clause (xxix), (xxx) of section 2 and section 3 of the I.R.O., 2002 read with Article 17 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. It is submitted that it is fundamental right of the workers to become members of union and to pay subscription according to constitution of union. It is submitted that the petitioner had earlier filed petition bearing Case No.4A(132)/2006-L/24(204)/2006-L in respect of these workers; when the petitioner had given charter of demands to respondent No.1, wherein ad interim order was passed. Settlement was reached between the petitioner union and management of respondent No.1 Annexures "A/6" and "A/7". As result of settlement that case was withdrawn A/7 at page 63 shows that it is direction of the company as such respondent No.1 is employer and M.M. Associates contractor is employee of respondent No.1. Annexure "A/7" has been signed by Tariq Soulat for management of respondent No.1 and General Secretary of the petitioner union. Settlement has been implemented by both the parties. It is submitted that since management of the respondent No.1 did not deduct union subscription, therefore the petitioner union filed case under section 33 of the I.R.O., 2002 read with sections 21 and 63 of I.R.O., 2002 before IVth Sindh Labour Court Karachi A/10(?). Prayer in the said application filed before IVth Sindh Labour Court Karachi is different than the prayer made in the present petition before the Commission. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 has locked-out the workers as per Annexure "A/5" without notice to the petitioner union as required under sections 25 and 31 of I.R.O., 2002. Even termination letters have not been received by these workers. It is submitted that workers like to take part in union election arid referendum. Respondent does not want this, as such prayer regarding interference with the union affairs is made. The petitioner unions General Secretary has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder and attached documents. It is submitted that the respondents have committed and are committing acts of unfair labour practice and the petitioner has good prima facie case and balance of convenience is in favour of the petitioner. In support of above contentions Mr. Shafique Qureshi learned advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on 1984 PLC 1359, 1993 PLC 937, unreported case No.7A(47)/2006-L/7A(48)/2006-L order,' dated 19-12-2006 by the Honourable Chairman/RITU National Industrial Relations Commission Islamabad (Bench at Lahore) and PLJ 2006 Lahore 1053 (Lahore High Court).

6. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents has contended that prayer made in the main petition is more or less same as in application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC(P&F) Regulations, 1973. Prayers made are to pass general order to restrain the respondent from transferring, terminating, dismissing, removing and lockout of the workers as per Annexures "A/3" and "A/4", lift the lockout of 20 persons listed in Annexure "A/5" and to restrain the respondents from interfering in trade union activities. It is submitted that in application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 in fact final relief as in main petition has been sought, without recording evidence. It is well settled principles of law that no final relief can be granted by way of interim relief. In support of this contention Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents has placed his reliance on 1961 PLC 555 (Supreme Court India) Delhi Cloth & General Mills Co. Ltd v. Rameshwar Dayal and another, wherein at page 559 it was held that an interim relief should not be the whole relief which a workman would get it if he succeeded finally. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents has contended that the petitioner has filed this petition under section 49(4)(e) of the I.R.O., 2002, which says that Commission to deal with case in the manner laid down under section 46 or

33. Advocate for the petitioner refers and relies on section 33 of I.R.O., 2002, which is corresponding to section 34 of I.R.O., 1969 (repealed), wherein the petitioner union can approach to the Labour Court for the redressal of any grievances or enforcement of any right guaranteed or secured to it by or under any law or any award or settlement and not for any right of individuals. In support of this contention reliance is placed on 1984 PLC 1359 (Karachi High Court) upheld by Supreme Court by judgment reported in 1992 SCMR

36. Reference is also made to Sindh Alkalis Ltd. Karachi v. Workers Union and another reported in PLD 1979 Kar.

473. In this case the Honourable Karachi High Court distinguished right guaranteed to union and right guaranteed to workers and held that right secured to workers cannot be enforced by taking recourse to section 34 I.R.O. 1969. It is submitted that prayer in the petition is right of individual persons and not of union, as such petition under section 49(4)(e) of I.R.O., 2002 is not maintainable. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents has contended that his second legal objection is that the petitioner union is registered with Provincial Registrar Trade Unions, as such remedy lies to the Labour Court and not with National Industrial Relations Commission. In support of this contention reference is made to 2002 PLC 274 (Karachi High Court) and it is submitted that petition is not maintainable. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents contended that even in case of individual workers National Industrial Relations Commission has no jurisdiction without examining if any unfair labour practice is committed. In support of this contention reliance is placed on 2004 SCMR 28 (Supreme Court of Pakistan) Malik Nazar Hussain v. National Bank of Pakistan and another, wherein at page 31 it has been held that National Industrial Relations Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition on behalf of the employee without examining whether he had been made victim of unfair labour practice in accordance with provisions of section 15 of I.R.O., 1969. Next it is contended by Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents that advocate for the petitioner has submitted that as per Annexure "A/3" union subscription is deducted by the respondent No.1 through check off. If the respondent No.1 is deducting union subscription through check off as per Annexure "A/3", there is no grievance in respect of Annexure "A/3". Regarding submission of learned advocate for the petitioner that the respondent No.1 is not deducting union subscription as per Annexure "A/4", it is submitted by Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents that the petitioner union has filed case in respect of Annexure "A/4" before IVth Sindh Labour Court Karachi, in this regard, which is sub judice. Matter already pending before IVth Sindh Labour Court Karachi for check off Annexure "A/4" cannot be agitated in this petition before the Commission. Further it is contended by Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents that his next legal objection is that petition under section 49(4)(e) of I.R.O., 2002 is to be treated as petition under section 33 of I.R.O., 2002, which says regarding pre-determined and pre-existing rights, which if the employer is not allowing or granting. It does not cover the rights, which are yet to be determined. Question in the present petition requires determination/adjudication whether alleged workers are employed by the respondent No.1. Not a single document has been filed by the petitioner union pertaining to employment of person in Annexures "A/4" and "A/5" in the General Tyre and Rubber Co. of Pakistan Ltd. No appointment letters have been produced. No document has been produced to show that these disputed workers are under Administrative, Managerial and Supervisory control of the respondent No.1. No document has been produced to show that the respondent No.1 has been paying salary to them. No order of promotion, transfer etc. in support of these disputed workers by the respondent No.1 has been produced. No document to show employment relationship of these disputed workers with the respondent No.1 establishment has been produced. Petitioner has produced Annexure "A/7", at page No.63. General Secretary of the petitioner union has signed on 5-9-2006 on this Annexure "A/7". General Secretary of the petitioner union, therefore, recognized and acknowledged that there is job contractor Messrs M.M. Associates in the establishment of respondent No.

1. Annexure "A/7" says that the company will ensure that its job contractor Messrs M.M Associates shall comply with labour laws regarding his workers, which does not mean that the respondent No.1 accepts that these disputed workers are employees of the respondent No.1. The petitioner union once recognized that there is job contractor Messrs M.M Associates in the respondent No.1 establishment now the petitioner cannot come to say that persons named in Annexures "A/4" to "A/5" are employees of the respondent No.1. Mere saying that these disputed workers are employees of the respondent No.1 is not sufficient, but the petitioner has to produce certain documents to show employment relationship of disputed workers with the respondent No.1. Messrs M.M. Associates contractor even has not been made party in the present proceedings. It is submitted that question if disputed workers listed in Annexures "A/4" and "A/5" are employees of the respondent No.1 or of Messrs M.M. Associates contractor is a disputed fact, which can only be decided after evidence of parties is recorded. It is to be decided by proper forum and not by NIRC. It is submitted that how the petitioner advocate can insist that without recording evidence, these disputed workers as per Annexures "A/4" and "A/5" be treated as employees of respondent No.1. First the petitioner union has to establish that these disputed workers as per Annexures "A/4" and "A/5" are employees of the respondent No.1. If any right is infringed, these disputed workers may file their individual grievance petitions before the labour Court. In support of this submission that the Court cannot adjudicate rights but can only enforce pre-determined rights under provisions of section 33 of I.R.O., 2002 (corresponding to section 34 of I.R.O., 1969), Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents has placed his reliance on 1974 PLC 194 (Karachi High Court) Muhammad Aqil v. Chairman Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another wherein at page 200 it has been held that from the language of section 34 it would appear that the Court does not under it either determine or adjudicate upon rights of the parties. The section merely provides for enforcement of pre-existing rights and not determination or adjudication of rights between the parties next it has been contended by Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned Advocate for the respondents that advocate for the petitioner has referred to the constitution of union in respect of membership. Unless the disputed workers prove that they are employed by the respondent, No.1, how can, they become members of the union. If the petitioner union has permitted these disputed workers as per Annexures "A/4" and "A/5" to be members of the petitioner union without any authentic pronouncement, then the petitioner union is an illegally constituted body. It is contended that the petitioner alleges that 20 persons as per Annexure "A/5" are locked out. Grant of interim relief is subject to pendency of an industrial dispute as laid down under proviso to clause (e) of subsection (4) of section 49 I.R.O., 2002. There is no industrial dispute pending. Industrial dispute is to be raised in prescribed manner by a collective Bargaining Agent or employer otherwise no industrial dispute shall be deemed to exist as laid down under section 35 of I.R.O., 2002. Word "prescribed" means prescribed by rules made under section

79. Industrial dispute is initiated by notice under section 25(1) of I.R.O., 2002. No notice under section 25(1) of I.R.O., 2002 has been given by the petitioner union to the respondent No.1. No notice of conciliation under section 25(3) of I.R.O.; 2002 is given by the petitioner union to the respondent. No.1. No notice of strike under section 31 of I.R.O., 2002 is given by the petitioner union to the respondent No.1. Application under section 33 of I.R.O., 2002 filed by the petitioner union before IVth Sindh Labour Court Karachi is not an industrial dispute. It is for pre-determined rights and not for adjudication of rights. No valid industrial dispute is therefore pending. It is submitted that settlement is in operation as such no industrial dispute can. be raised during its operation. Petitioner union has given undertaking in settlement not to raise any demands during operation of settlement. It is contended that regarding deduction of union subscription from wages through check off under section 21 of I.R.O., 2002, the petitioner union has already filed application Annexure "A/10" before IVth Sindh Labour Court. It is submitted that this issue cannot be raised by the petitioner union in this petition before NIRC, as there can be conflict of decisions, when appellate forums of labour Court and NIRC are also different. If the relief is justifiable in more than two forums, the petitioner union may thrash hold and choose the forum. The petitioner union cannot maintain petitions in two forums. It is submitted that union subscription through check off can only be deducted when wages are paid by the respondent No.1. The disputed workers mentioned in Annexures "A/4" and "A/5" are not employed by the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 did not give them salary, how then the respondent No.1 can deduct union subscription from their salaries. It is also not case of the petitioner that the respondent No.1 is giving salary to these disputed workers mentioned in Annexures "A/4" and "A/5". Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents has contended that the learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to definition of "trade union" under clause (xxix) of section 2 of I.R.O., 2002 means any combination of workers. First the petitioner union has to prove that these alleged workers mentioned in Annexures "A/4" and "A/5" are employed by the respondent No.1, otherwise they cannot become members of the petitioner union, even under the constitution of the petitioner union, wherein it is mentioned that membership will be given to the workers employed by the General Tyre and Rubber Co. of Pakistan Ltd. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents has contended that the learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to definitions of "worker" and "workman" under clause (xxx) of section 2 of I.R.O., 2002 and has put his emphasis on word "any". Word "any" does not mean any person in the world. It will mean the worker, who is employed by the respondent No.1 and is working under Administrative and Managerial control any supervision of the respondent No.1 and is paid salary by the respondent No.1. All this requires recording of evidence. Reliance is placed on 1961 PLC 1033 (Supreme Court of Pakistan). It is submitted that clause (5) of the constitution itself says that any workman employed in Messrs General Tyre and Rubber Co. Pakistan Ltd. can become member. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents has contended that the learned advocate for the petitioner has referred to section 3 of I.R.O., 2002 and Article 17 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, regarding freedom of workers to join any trade union of their choice, but for that the petitioner has to establish that disputed workers are employed by the respondent No.1. With regard to contention of Mr. Shafique Qureshi learned advocate for the petitioner that the respondent No.1 has locked out 20 workers mentioned in Annexure "A/5", which is an act of unfair labour practice, Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents has contended that these workers mentioned in Annexure "A/5" were not employed by the respondent No.1. Moreover the alleged act of lockout if any already committed, it cannot be prevented under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973. In support of this contention Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents has relied upon unreported judgment, dated 1-10-1980 by the High Court of Sindh at Karachi in Constitutional Petition No.D-1358 of 1980 Sindh Alkalis Ltd. through its Managing Director and 3 others v Senior Member NIRC and another unreported judgment, dated 19-9-1997 by the High Court of Sindh Karachi in Constitutional Petition No.1197 of 1997 in Corn Pak Employees Union through President v. Messrs Corn Pak Ltd. through Divisional Manager and 3 others, 1984 PLC 397 (Karachi High Court) in case of Saeed Ahmed Qazi and another v. National Industrial Relations Commission and another, 1984 PLC 1342 (Karachi High Court) in case of Allied Bank of Pakistan v. Chairman National Industrial Relations Commission and 4 others, 1986 PLC 985 (Karachi High Court) in case 'of National Bank of Pakistan v. Senior Member NIRC and another and PLD 1976 Lahore 611 in case of Dr. Aijaz Hussain Qureshi v National Industrial Relations Commission and 2 others. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondent has contended that the respondent No.1 has right by law to give work on contract and even General Secretary of the petitioner union has recognized and acknowledged existence of contractor Messrs M.M. Associates in the respondent No.1 establishment by signing Annexure "A/7" on 5-9-2006. In support of this contention Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents has placed his reliance on unreported judgment, dated 13th February, 1983 of Honourable Supreme of Pakistan (Full Bench) in civil appeal No.39 of 1997 of Muhammad Sharif and others v. Punjab Labour Court and another, unreported judgment, dated 3-7-2000 of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan (DB) in C.P.L.A No.458-K of 1999 Nasir Jamal and 23 others v. Pak Suzuki Motor Co. Ltd and 3 others, unreported order, dated 19-12-2005 of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan (Full Bench) in C.P.S.L.A Nos.809-K to 815-K of 2005 Aftab Ali and 6 others v. Messrs Wood Wards Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and others, 1985 SCMR 257 (Full Bench) in Mian Munir Ahmed v. The State and 2006 PLC 630 (Lahore High Court) in Fauji Sugar Mills through General Manager v. Mehmood Ahmed. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents has contended that the petitioner in affidavit-in-rejoinder has not rebutted the contents of counter affidavit, but has taken a fresh plea regarding withdrawal of vehicle from the General Secretary of the petitioner union. Since the vehicle in possession of the General Secretary of the petitioner union was not a right guaranteed, as such withdrawal of such facility is not an unfair labour practice. Reference is made to 1977 PLC 212 (Chairman NIRC) in case of Abdullah Butt v. S.H. Muzaffar Zaidi wherein it was held that withdrawal of facility of scooter provided to trade union officer cannot amount to unfair labour practice under section 15(1) of I.R.O., 1969. The General Secretary of the petitioner union in affidavit-in-joinder has also levelled false and baseless allegations against high ranking Foreign employer of the respondent No.1 establishment, which is not befitting to the union. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents has contended that Israr Ahmed Khan and Muhammad Boota were charge-sheeted. Enquiry officer was appointed. On report of enquiry officer both of them were dismissed on account of their misconduct vide Annexures "R/2" and "R/3". To take disciplinary action on charge of misconduct against the worker is right of the respondent No.1 and it does not constitute unfair labour practice. In support of this contention reliance is placed on 1991 PLC 876 (Lahore High Court), 2004 PLC 209. (Member NIRC) and 2005 PLC 88 (Member NIRC).

7. I have considered arguments advanced by Mr. Shafique Qureshi learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani learned advocate for the respondents and have gone through the petition under section 49(4)(e) read with section 63 of I.R.O., 2002, application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973, supporting affidavit filed by the petitioner, reply statement with legal objections and counter affidavit filed by the respondents and affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by General Secretary of the petitioner-union and documents produced by the parties.

8. The petitioner union claims that workers mentioned in Annexures "A/3", "A/4" and "A/5" are employed permanently on permanent jobs in the respondent No.1-Establishment. However no appointment letters, service identity cards, social security cards, Employees old age benefits cards, attendance register, salary voucher or salary sheets, leave application form, leave sanction order or any other document relating to employment of these workers with the respondent No. 1 have been produced to establish relationship of these workers with the respondent No.1. It is also not shown that the respondents had administrative, managerial and supervisory control over these workers and salaries were paid to them by the respondent No.1. Regarding disputed workers mentioned in Annexure "A/4" it is mentioned by the petitioner that the respondent No.1 had not issued appointment letters to them, but had obtained signatures from them on blank/printed/written papers, vouchers etc. which allegation has been vehemently denied by the respondents in reply statement, as such it stands rebutted. Even any alleged non-compliance of Standing Order 2-A and Standing Order 20 of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 by itself is not an act of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents. The respondent No.1 categorically denied that the disputed workers were employed by the respondent No.1. None of the disputed workers has filed affidavit in support of the petitioner union that they were employed by the respondent No.1. According to the respondent No.1 there is job contractor Messrs M.M. Associates in the respondent No.1 establishment, being separate and independent entity, whose existence in the respondent No.1 establishment has been recognized and acknowledged by the General Secretary of the petitioner union by signing Annexure "A-7", dated 5-9-2006 which clearly shows that job contractor Messrs M.M. Associates has employed his own workmen, for which this assurance was given that the company will ensure that its job contractor Messrs M.M. Associates will give following increase in salary and benefits to its workers as mentioned therein. From definition of "employer" in clause (x) of section 2 of I. R.O., 2002 a `contractor' or `an establishment of a contractor' has also been included as an employer. Right to employ labour by contractor is recognized, being a separate and independent entity and Factory Management shall not be responsible for such labour. I am fortified in my view by 1985 SCMR 257 (Full Bench) Mian Munir Ahmad v. The State where it was observed that labour employed by contractor and not employed by employer-Factory Management, held, not responsible for such labour in any manner and would not be required to issue attendance tickets to such workers under section 2, Sched. Item 2(g) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. In Civil Appeal No.39 of 1977 Muhammad Sharif and others v. Punjab Labour Court No.3 and another Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan (Full Bench) in the judgment, dated 13th February, 1983 observed that the workers employed by the contractor are not under the contract of service of the employer and the contractor is at liberty to select any set of workers for the compliance of his own contract, the necessary consequence is that the workers are the appointees of the contractor and it is his responsibility to take work out of them, to pay them their wages accordingly, to keep a control on them, to remove them or to deal with them in any manner. Such workers are thus answerable to the contractor alone and not to the employer for whom the contractor is carrying on work. Such workers, having no contract of service with the employer, therefore cannot be deemed to be "employees" as defined in the statute. In C.P.L.A. No.458-K of 1999 Nasir Jamal and 23 others v. Pak Suzuki Motors Company Ltd. and 3 others Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan (DB) in judgment, dated 3-7-2000 observed that sole controversy between the parties revolves around the relationship of employer and employee ... consistently case of the respondent company throughout has been that the petitioners were never employed by the said company and in fact they were the employees of respondent Muhammad Hussain against whom no grievance was made in the grievance petitions preferred before the Labour Court. Unfortunately for the petitioners there is neither any letter of appointment, nor medical fitness certificate, payment of salary vouchers or even a ticket of employment for their entry into the factory premises of respondent No.1 with the result that they have been non-suited for the reason that they failed to establish their nexus with any of the respondents .... there is not an iota of evidence to suggest that the petitioners or any of them was at any point of time employed by the respondent company so as to direct reinstatement of the petitioners. Further it was observed that indeed, establishment of contractor for supply of labour to an establishment or industries is a separate entity and different from the industrial establishment to whom such work force is supplied on terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties. The fact that respondent No.2 entered into an agreement with the respondent No.1 is not disputed but the fate of the petitioners' case can not be decided simply on the ground that since the respondent No.2 entered into such agreement with the respondent company, petitioners must be assumed to have appointed by the said respondents for actual duty in the respondent company. Reference was made to the cases reported as Munir Ahmed v. State 1985 SCMR 257 and Farid Ahmed v. Pakistan Burmah Shell Limited 1987 SCMR 1463. Leave to appeal was refused. In CP.S.L.A Nos.809-K to 815-K of 2005 Aftab Ali and 6 others v. Messrs Wood Wars Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. and others Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan (Full Bench) in its order, dated 19-12-2005 observed that it is an established practice and recognized mode of administration of Commercial and Industrial establishment to let out the work on contract. Above decisions of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan are applicable to the four corners to the assertions and stand taken by the respondents that the disputed workers are not employed by the respondent No.1 but of contractor, hence the respondent No.1 is not responsible for them. In view of the above unreported and reported citations of Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan citation PLJ 2006 Lahore 1053 (Single Bench of Lahore High Court) relied upon by the learned advocate for the petitioner will be of no assistance to the learned advocate for the petitioner and is not applicable to the present case. So also order, dated 19-12-2006 of Honourable Chairman/RITU NIRC in case No.7A(47)/2006-L and 7A(48)/2006-L as it pertains to the workers who were appointed on contract by Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited by issuing appointment letters to those contract workers, whereas in the present case, disputed workers prima facie have not shown that they were employed by the respondent No.1, as the disputed workers have failed to produce any appointment letters of the respondent No.1 or any other related document of employment to show their employment relationship with the respondent No.1. Since relationship of employment with the disputed workers has been vehemently denied by the respondents in the reply statement, as such onus to prove and to establish employment relationship of the disputed workers with the respondent No.1 establishment is on the petitioner union but no document relating to employment has been produced to establish their employment relationship with the respondent No.1. Even none of these workers have filed their affidavits to substantiate this claim of the petitioner union. In case of Alamgir and 2 others v. Messrs Dada Bhoy Silk Mills Ltd. and others reported in 1997 PLC 13 Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh observed that the relationship of employee and employer having been denied by the employer burden lay on, employees to prove that they were their employees. Neither it is mentioned in the petition nor in affidavit- in-rejoinder that the respondent No.1 when did not issue appointment letters. Service Identity cards, gate passes, Social security institution cards and employees old age benefit cards to the said workers, why the petitioner union or the said workers themselves did not make any application to the respondent No.1 or file complaint against the respondent No.1 before the Labour Department or Labour Court regarding contravention of provisions of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 by the respondent No.1. The petitioner union cannot base its petition on general and vague. allegations, but has to produce documents to establish employment relationship of the said workers as per Annexures "A/3" and "A/4" with the respondent No.1. In the circumstances grant of interim relief will amount to induct the said workers in employment of the respondents without the petitioner union and the said workers to have established their employment relationship with the respondent No.1, which shall not be legal approach.

9. It is clear proposition of law that until the persons mentioned in Annexure "A/4" establish their employment relationship with the respondent No.1, they cannot become members of the petitioner union. Clause (5) of the Constitution of the petitioner union itself says that any workman employed in the establishment of the Messrs General Tyre and Rubber Company of Pakistan Ltd., Landhi Karachi to which the union relates, shall be entitled to become a member of the union. Clause (a) of subsection (2) of section 6 lays down that without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (1), a trade union of workmen shall not be entitled to registration under this Ordinance unless all its members are workmen actually engaged or employed in the establishment or industry with which the trade union is connected. It therefore appears that for joining union as a member, the worker or workman shall be actually engaged or employed in the establishment, which aspect so far is not brought on the record by the petitioner by way of any documentary evidence.

10. No doubt under section 21 of the I.R.O., 2002 the respondent No.1 is obliged to deduct union subscription from the wages of the workmen, but firstly it shall be established that the persons mentioned in Annexure "A/4" were employed by the respondent No.1 and the respondent No.1 had been paying wages to them, as union subscription through check-off is to be deducted from the wages. No salary voucher or salary statement showing that the respondent No.1 had ever paid salary to any of the persons named in Annexure "A/4" has been produced. Non-attending the letter, dated- 24-8-2006 of the General Secretary of the petitioner union, demanding deduction of monthly subscription under check-off system in respect of the members listed in Annexure "A/4" by the respondent No.1, since according to the respondent No.1 are not on their pay roll, does not appear to be contravention of provisions of section 21 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002. It also does not amount to be act of unfair labour practice. Let the petitioner union and the said workers mentioned in Annexure "A/4" at first instance to establish their employment relationship with the respondent No.1 by showing that the respondent No.1 had administrative, managerial and supervisory control over them and the respondent No.1 had been paying wages to them. Then they may claim their membership in the petitioner union and deduction of union subscription from their wages through check-off system.

11. Interim prohibitory relief of general nature is sought by the petitioner to restrain the respondents from transferring, removing, retrenching, dismissing workers from employment as per Annexures "A/3" and "A/4", which can cause great hardship and inconvenience to the respondent No.1, as such the petitioner union neither has a prima facie case nor balance of convenience lie in favour of grant of interim relief. Even otherwise grant of interim relief against any action mentioned in section 63(1)(d) of the I.R.O., 2002 is subject to pendency of an industrial dispute. Industrial dispute has neither been raised in prescribed manner nor is pending, as such grant of interim relief is barred under proviso to clause (e) of subsection (4) of section 49 of I.R.O., 2002. Reference is made to unreported judgment in Constitutional Petition No.D-235 of 2005 Messrs Allwin Engineering Industries Limited v. NIRC and another wherein it has been held that the proviso to section 49(4)(e) makes it explicitly clear that no interim relief could be granted against the transfer of the workman unless an industrial dispute was pending. Reference is also made to 2007 PLC 133 (Member NIRC). The petitioner union has filed an application under section 33 of I.R.O., 2002 read with sections 21 and 63 of I.R.O., 2002 before IVth Sindh Labour Court Karachi, which is sub judice. That cannot be termed as an industrial dispute. For raising an industrial dispute various provisions as laid down under sections 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 are to be followed. In case of Messrs Ramzan Ali and Co. Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory Mirpurkhas v. General Secretary Employees Union and another reported in 1996 PLC 311 Karachi High Court observed that application filed by General Secretary of Employees' Union before Labour Court under section 34 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, was in respect of "right guaranteed and secured under the law" which could not be an "industrial dispute" as per definition -given in section 2(xiii) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

12. Regarding another prayer in respect of interim relief to lift the lockout of the workers as per Annexure "A/5", it appears that according to the petitioner the workers mentioned in Annexure "A/5" were locked out on 14-7-2007, whereas the petition was filed on 24-7-2007 as such the act of the unfair labour practice if any already committed cannot be prevented under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973, as the said provision can be invoked when an unfair labour practice is likely to be committed. I am fortified in my view by unreported judgment, dated 19-9-1997 of High Court of Sindh at Karachi in Constitution Petition No.1197 of 1997 in Corn Pak Employees Union through President v. Messrs Corn Pak Ltd. through Divisional Manager and 3 others where it has been held that as is indicated by Regulation 32(2), the Commission has also been empowered to take preventive measures, where an unfair labour practice is likely to occur. In the present case, evidently unfair labour practice if any had already occurred, according to the allegations made in the complaint filed on behalf of the petitioners. Therefore, the relief sought by the petitioners, which was of preventive nature, could hardly be granted to them under the circumstances as such relief can only be granted in a case where unfair labour practice is likely to occur, but not in a case where it has already occurred. In case of Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and 3 others v. Chairman National Industrial Relations Commission and 4 others reported in 1984 PLC 1342 Karachi High Court held that National Industrial Relations Commission was empowered under Regulation 32 clause (2) to prohibit doing of an act/omission which constituted an unfair labour practice. Commission not vested with such power in respect of an unfair labour practice already committed and covered by Regulation 32 clause (1).

13. Regarding the third interim relief sought in the application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 to restrain the respondents, their employees, agents from interfering in the affairs of the petitioner union, no any specific instances of interference in the affairs of the petitioner union have been attributed on the part of the respondents and mere general and bald allegations do not constitute unfair labour practice.

14. The upshot of above discussion is that the petitioner union in order to join the disputed workers as members of the petitioner union at first instance by substantial and overwhelming documentary evidence has to establish that the said workers are actually engaged by the respondent No.1 and that the respondent No.1 has Administrative, Managerial and Supervisory Control on the said workers and they are being paid wages by the respondent No.1. Then alone it shall be obligatory on the respondent No.1 to deduct union subscription from their wages. So far no such documentary proof of employment relationship of the disputed workers with respondent No.1 establishment has been produced. This disputed question of fact therefore requires recording of evidence to resolve the same.

15. It is settled proposition of law that to give charge-sheet and initiate disciplinary proceedings against a delinquent worker is statutory right of the employer, which cannot be curbed or termed as unfair labour practice. National Industrial Relations Commission has no general jurisdiction, but is vested with jurisdiction if the workmen had been made victim of unfair labour practice in accordance with the provisions of section 63 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, which in the facts and circumstances of the present case, can be determined after evidence of the parties is recorded. Reference is made to PLD 1988 Supreme Court 53, 204 SCMR 28, 2004 PLC 209 (Member NIRC) and 2005 PLC 88 (Member NIRC). For the foregoing reasons I am of considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a prima facie case and balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the petitioner to grant interim relief. Accordingly the application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 is dismissed. To come up on 20-8-2007 for filing affidavit-in-evidence by the petitioner. H.B.T./11/NIRC Application dismissed.