1996 PLP 742 (PLC)

1990 PLC 373 ref Malik Mehrban, Representative for Petitioner Abdul Hafeez Amjad for Respondents. This order will dispose of above‑titled petition filed under the provisions of section 22‑A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the I.R.O.) wherein the petitioner is an employee of the establishment of Northern Areas Government Transport Corporation, as mechanic and is also a member of the Pakistan Peoples Workers' Union (NATCO), Islamabad. It is submitted that the Pakistan Peoples Workers' Union (NATCO) is a duly registered trade union, for the said establishment, by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Islamabad. It is contended that due to performance of lawful trade union activities by the petitioner, the respondents have started victimization, thereby issuing a baseless charge -sheet dated 6‑7‑1995, in consequence whereof an inquiry was also constituted vide order dated 30‑7‑1995. It was submitted that the respondents intend to illegally and unlawfully dismiss or terminate the services of the petitioner and this act constitutes unfair labour practice within the meaning of section‑ 15 of the I.R.O., 1969. Considering such vehement the petition was registered and interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner on 3‑9‑1995.

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. It is an admitted feature of the case that the petitioner is an employee, as Mechanic and is also a member of the Pakistan Peoples Workers' Union (NATCO), Islamabad. It is further an admitted feature that the Pakistan Peoples Workers' Union (NATCO), Islamabad is "a registered trade union with e Registrar of Trade Unions, Islamabad. The objection of the learned counsel f r the respondents that this Commission has got no jurisdiction as the provisions f I.R.O., 1969 are not applicable to the Northern Areas, is without any basis the provisions of I.R.O., 1969 have been extended to the whole f Pakistan by virtue of the provisions of section 1 of the I.R.O., 19 9 and the territory of Pakistan has also been defined under the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 which duly includes the Northern Area. Besides the establishment is spread‑over different parts including Islamabad and that is why the union has also been registered for the entire establishment by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Islamabad, therefore, this objection is discarded.

5. As already discussed above the status of the petitioner as a member of Pakistan Peoples Workers' Union (NATCO), Islamabad, cannot be denied by the respondents and his trade union activities are also not disputed. The contents of the show‑cause notice dated 6‑7‑1995 do not disclose any time, place, or occasion nor it disclose that what misconduct was committed by the petitioner. It is also silent about the rules of the respondents' establishment which are allegedly violated. ‑It also does not disclose that whether Malik Naseer Akram, who is Storekeeper, can lawfully issue instructions to the petitioner and whether the petitioner was required to obey the same. Besides, the same do not indicate any criminality in the disorderly behaviour of the petitioner which was a necessary element for the constitution of act of misconduct as held by Hon'ble Karachi High Court in reported case No. 1990 PLC

373. Furthermore, in the reply dated 11‑7‑1995 submitted by the petitioner to the show‑cause notice, indicates that the petitioner has totally surrendered and was ready and willing to fulfill his duties and directions, irrespective of their illegality. Furthermore, the inquiry proceedings conducted against the petitioner are violative of the provisions of Standing Order 15(4) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, whereby an independent inquiry is required and whereas admittedly, the inquiry constituted against the petitioner include a member of the rival union, therefore, I have reached to the safe conclusion that issuance of charge‑sheet dated 6‑7‑1995 and all the subsequent proceedings on the basis thereof, are an act of unfair labour practice and therefore, the charge‑sheet dated 6‑7‑1995 issued to the petitioner is quashed. The respondents are permanently restrained from taking any action on the basis of the same against the petitioner and are also generally restrained from committing any other act of unfair labour practice against the petitioner in future. The petition being accepted is disposed of without any orders as to costs. H.B.T./274/NIRC Petition accepted.