1995 PLP 550 (PLC)

1983 PLC 411 distinguished. Syed Ghazi Shah for the Complainant. Hafiz Muhammad Younus, Representative for Respondent. This is a complaint under section 16 read with section 53(2) of the I.R.O., 1969 whereby the complainant, being an employee of the P.T.C. Department, posted as Technician at T.S.C. Staff College, Haripur, was also, a member of trade union namely, Pakistan Telecommunication Staff Union registered. It was contended that the complainant was expelled from the union and his membership was ceased on account of alleged activities, which was against the constitution of the union specially by publishing and posting a pamphlet, which was filed on record as Annexure `A'. It was further contended that this act constituted an unfair labour practice as the complainant is the group leader who contested the election against the present respondent accused in the year, 1992 and due to this enmity, expulsion of the complainant was illegally ordered by the respondents. The respondents strongly contested this complaint thereby filing their comments wherein certain preliminary legal objections were raised as to the maintainability of the complaint. However, it is necessary to observe that the posting and publishing of, pamphlet was not disputed by the present complainant as also is evident from the reply to the show‑cause notice.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their help have also gone through the documents filed by them.

3. The respondents union is not only a registered union but also is the Collective Bargaining Agent for the Establishment of Pakistan Telecommunication Department. The respondent No. 1 is the General Secretary while the respondent No. 2 is the President of the P.T.C. Lions Staff Union, Haripur Unit. The union has a constitution, which is duly approved by the Registrar of the National Industrial Relations Commission. The complainant, who was a member of the said union was expelled from the union by the respondent No. 1 on the allegations of working against the interest of the union by publishing and distributing a pamphlet, produced on record. It is an admitted fact that a show‑cause notice was given to the complainant and the complainant has also replied the same. According to the provisions of Article 11 of the constitution of the union the executive committee/council is competent to hold expulsion proceedings and accordingly an executive committee was formed who found the reply not satisfactory and the' complainant was expelled from the union by cancelling his membership. Therefore, there is nothing to constitute the commission of the offence under section 16(1)(6) of the I.R.O., 1969. The contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the provisions of the constitution of the union are contradictory and violative of the provisions of the I.R.O., 1969 are not relevant here as there is a separate procedure to challenge such a constitution and this complaint do not require inquiry in such type of questions. The case‑law referred by the learned counsel for the complainant i.e. 1983 PLC page 411, is on different proposition and is not relevant for the decision in this case.

4. As a result of above discussion it is held that the complaint is not maintainable which is dismissed without Further proceedings. H.B.T./227/N.I.R.C. Complaint dismissed.