1997 PLC 10 (PLP)

Active Member Considering such averments the petition was registered and interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner on 23‑10‑1995.

2. The petition was strongly contested by the respondents by way of filing of written statement and the rejoinder to the stay application wherein certain preliminary legal objections as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the documents filed on record.

4. At the very outset, it is noted that the petition is filed by the President and General Secretary of the Pakistan People's Workers' Union (NATCO), Islamabad seeking the following prayer: "In view of the above, it is respectfully prayed that this learned Commission may kindly adjudicate in the matter and the .respondents may kindly be directed not to transfer the following office‑bearers and members of the Union: (1) Abadat Khan President (2) Ahad Ullah Vice‑President (3) Abdul Rehman Office Secretary (4) Salamat Ali Finance Secretary (5) Gul Nawaz Active Member The respondents may further be directed to conduct themselves and their affairs in a manner calculated to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practice. " After going through this prayer it becomes evident that the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Commission in order to get a general restraintment order against the respondent‑establishment in respect of the 5 office‑bearers, whereas all the documents filed on record indicates that an explanation was called from one person namely Abadat Khan i.e. the President of the Pakistan People's Workers' Union (NATCO) and the case record is absolutely silent about the rest of the persons named therein. Neither any specific allegation of unfair labour practice has been levelled upon the respondents in respect of the 4 other persons in the body of the petition nor there is any reasonable apprehension as to why the respondent/Management of the establishment will take any action of victimisation against them. An explanation was called from Mr. Abadat Khan, President of the Union vide letter dated 19‑2‑1995 which was duly replied. This explanation letter cannot be treated as show‑cause notice regarding misconduct etc. on the basis whereof there may be a genuine apprehension that the respondents may lawfully terminate the services or are bent upon terminating or dismissing the services of the petitioner or other persons by illegal means. The law on the subject is already there and this Commission need not to pass any general order in respect of the persons named ~ the petition. Such of general restraintment order may deprive the employer e. respondent establishment, from the exercise of their fundamental rights i.e. calling explanation or holding disciplinary proceedings etc., against the employer. It is a well‑settled position of law that the issuance of show‑cause notices, explanation letters, or holding of inquiry proceedings is one of the fundamental rights of the employer and is also one of the day to day routine matters in an establishment and such right cannot be snatched away on the basis of mere apprehension of acts of unfair labour practice, even which is also lacking in the case in hand for reference the case may be cited i.e. Allied Bank of Pakistan Workers' Union etc. v. Zonal Chief, Allied Bank of Pakistan, Faisalabad reported in 1994 PLC 131 and Arif Ali v. Gulshan Carpet etc. 1994 PLC 35, reliance can also be placed on 1989 PLC 447 and 1988 PLC 884. 5 As a result of the above discussion, it is held that the petitioners have not shown any cogent reason for the interference of this Commission in exercise of its jurisdiction under the provisions of section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969, therefore, the petition is not maintainable which is dismissed without any orders as to costs. H.B.T./273/NIRC Petition dismissed