1995 PLP 423 (PLC)

S. Rais Ahmed Jafri for Respondent. This is a petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the IRO, 1969 wherein the petitioner contends that due to his trade union activities the respondent Establishment is bent upon committing unfair labour practice as the petitioner is an active member of House Building Finance Corporation Employees' Union which is also CBA of Islamabad‑Peshawar Zone. He further contended that a baseless charge‑sheet was also served upon the petitioner wherein the inquiry was also conducted and the petitioner is suspended from service since November; 1992: 2. Alongwith this petition an application for interim injunction under Regulation 32(2) of the NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 was also filed upon which this Court has issued interim injunction order in favour of the petitioner vide its order dated 30‑10‑1994. 3. The petition was contested by the respondent and the rejoinder to the application under Regulation 32(2) of the NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 was also filed, wherein the respondent not only contested the petition on merits but also primarily legal objections as to the jurisdiction of this Court was also raised. 4. The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties were heard and examined the documents filed on record. 5. The main objection of the respondent's counsel is that this Court has got no jurisdiction as there is no unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15 and section 22‑A(8)(g) of the IRO, 1969, therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. After going through the record before this Court it becomes evident that the petitioner was served with a charge‑sheet on 14‑12‑1992 alongwith statement of allegations. This charge‑sheet was replied by the petitioner vide reply dated 22‑12‑1992 in which there was absolutely no indication that the respondent is taking such action on account of trade union activities of the petitioner. Similarly, another show‑cause notice dated 23‑12‑1993 was also replied by the petitioner vide reply dated 6‑1‑1994 and it is also absolutely silent in respect of any sort of trade union activities of the petitioner. Besides, as also admitted by the petitioner himself, the petitioner is involved in various criminal cases and out of these criminal cases he has obtained bail in 16 cases but the challan of these cases have yet to be submitted before the Court of competent jurisdiction. The petitioner has been suspended since November, 1992 and there is also a report of the Inquiry Officer dated 11th December, 1993 in which ‑the petitioner was found guilty of all the charges of misconduct levelled against him alongwith his other colleagues. Therefore, it is evident that the petitioner has attempted to build up a case of victimization on account of his trade union activities at very subsequent stage and similarly, allegations of unfair labour practice levelled against the establishment are also afterthought. There is no merit in the entire petition. Neither the petitioner has established any case of unfair labour practice in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court within the meaning of sections 15 and 22‑A(8)(g) of the IRO, 1969 nor I think it proper to interfere with the lawful process initiated against the petitioner by the respondent on account of allegations of misconduct etc. Even otherwise, it cannot be said that if the management takes action against a worker who is found guilty of misconduct, it acts in violation of section 15 of the IRO, 1969. It is the right of the management to take disciplinary action against a worker who is found guilty of misconduct. In support of my above said findings, I quote the decision of Full Bench of this Commission in case of National Motors Limited v. Muhammad Hanif reported in 1987 PLC page 457. 7. In the light of the above discussion it is held that the petitioner has failed to establish case of unfair labour practice in order to give jurisdiction to this Court, within the meaning of sections 15 and 22‑A(8)(g) of the IRO, 1969, therefore, the petition is rejected for want of jurisdiction alongwith application under Regulation 32(2) of the NIRC (P & F) Regulations, 1973 without any orders as to costs. The order dated 30‑10‑1994 is recalled. H.B.T./223/NIRC Petition rejected.