2012 PLP 30 (PLC)

BASHIR AHMED MEMON (MEMBER).

The petitioners named above have filed the present petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 claiming that they are employed with the respondents establishment and are working in different departments of the Mills. They are active members of the Officers Association of Pakistan Steel and due to their trade union activities the respondents do not like them. It is asserted that recently a delegation of the above mentioned employees approached Chief Executive Officer, respondent No.1 and submitted the demands of releasing House Rent for 27 months, shift allowance, 15% Enhancement in salary and 50% further enhancement in the salary as announced by the Prime Minister of Pakistan and Chief Executive Officer assured them that these demands would be discussed in the meeting of Board of Directors for its approval but when the petitioners again met with the Chief Executive Officer he told them that their demands were declined by the Board of Directors, therefore the petitioners decided to form a association and on 21-8-2010 a meeting of general body was held in which an association was formed in the name and style "Voice of Pakistan Steel Officers Association" and application for its registration was submitted to the Registrar of Trade Unions, Sindh and information regarding formation of the association was communicated to the respondent management on 6-9-2010, copies are enclosed as Annex. A, B, C, D and E. It is alleged that on receiving the information about formation of the association the respondents issued charge sheets firstly to petitioner No.1 and Mst. Hamida Begum who are President and Joint Secretary of newly formed Officers Association and the charge-sheet are yet to be served upon petitioner No.2 wherein false and concocted charges have been levelled against them. It is stated that there is very strong apprehension that services of the petitioners particularly whose names have been stated in Annex. "E" would be sacked as a revenge due to their lawful and bona fide trade union activities which is very clear from the statement given by respondent No.1 in daily "Jang" dated 9-9-2010. It is asserted that the above mentioned charge sheets have been issued with mala fide intention to the active officers of the association during the process of registration in order to harass them and make an example for others for preventing them from taking part in trade union/association activities which is act of unfair labour practice on the part of respondents management and the petitioners were apprehending that respondent management on the behest of sitting CBA and other corrupt mafia would not only deprive them of their right to participate actively in bona fide trade union activities to achieve better terms and conditions with monetary benefits for their members but also unlawfully and illegally harass, pressurize, coerce, victimize, harm and even dismiss or discharge them from service, hence this petition has been filed for declaring the above mentioned acts of the respondents as acts of unfair labour practice.

2. After service of the notice the respondents have filed their comments with preliminary legal objections and counter-affidavit. The respondents have raised the objections regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that the petition is barred by section 17 of the I.R.A. 2008 which is governing law at the moment after the enactment of the Sindh Industrial Relations Act, 2010 and the services of the petitioners are governed under the Pakistan Steel Officers Service Rules and Regulations and the said Rules have been declared as non-statutory as such the principle of "Master and Servant" is applicable upon them as such the law of Industrial Relations does not give protection to such employees being not workmen, as such the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. The respondents have specifically denied the allegations made by the petitioners. They have asserted that the petitioners are officers of on unregistered Association as such could not raise demands. It is asserted that petitioners were charge-sheeted on the report of DGM/Incharge (Security) dated 3-9-2010 that Mirza Maqsood, petitioner No.1, Ashfaq Majeed, petitioner No.2 and Mrs. Hamida Begum, petitioner No.3 gathered about 300 persons including officers of Pakistan Steel on 2-9-2010 at Karachi Press club at 1620 hours for agitation and they used infra-ulterior words for the management, therefore disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them and the petitioners have filed the present petition only to frustrate the disciplinary proceedings, as such the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the petition.

3. I have heard arguments of Mr. Muhammad Ali, Labour Representative appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Messrs Khalid Imran and Shahzad Wilson, learned counsel appearing, on behalf of the respondents and have gone through the pleadings of the case and material placed on record.

4. Admittedly the, petitioners are working as officers in the respondent establishment. According to them they have formed an association of officers and applied for its registration but the same has not yet been registered. They themselves claim that they have submitted some demands to the respondent No.1 which were declined and due to this act of the petitioners the respondents are annoyed and have started threatening them of dire consequences.

5. The point 'for determination is that whether the petitioners who are officers can maintain the present petition before this Bench of Commission alleging the acts of unfair labour practice. The prayer made in the petition is as contained under section 15 of the I.R.O. 1969 which can only be sought by workmen having relation with a trade, union of workmen and not by officers who claim that they are officers of Officers Association which is a combination of officers/employers. Section 22-A (8)(g) of the I.R.O. 1969 also enunciates that National Industrial Relations Commission can deal with the cases of unfair labour practice against the employer when it is filed by the workmen .or the trade union of workmen which is CBA as specified in section 15 of the I.R.O. 1969.

6. It is well-settled that the terms and conditions of the persons falling outside the purview of labour laws are normally governed by the simgle rule of "Master and Servant" unless there are Statutory rules governing such terms and conditions. It does not appeal to human reason that persons belonging to the categories of employers, whose service Conditions are thus at the discretion of the Master, were intended to get allowance of protection of unfair labour practice under section 15 of I.R.O. 1969.

7. In Appeal No.12 (70)/1996 (Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation v. Pakistan Steel Officers Association and another) the Full Bench of NIRC in order dated 6-6-1996 (unreported) observed that "Section 15 of the IRO, 1969 envisages unfair labour practice on the part of employer to be those unfair labour practices, which an employer commits as against his workmen or prospective workmen and not against other employees employed by him." It was further observed that:-- "Officers Associations are the associations of employers and not workmen. Thus the petition by an employer against the employer praying that prohibitory order be issued against the employer for his apprehended act of unfair labor practice is neither maintainable under section 25-A nor under section 34 or under section 22A(8)(g) of the IRO, 1969. "

8. Adverting to the Question of jurisdiction of the Commission to interfere in such-like matters, I find that according to law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Iftikhar Ahmed v. President National Bank of Pakistan and others (Civil Appeal No.221 of 1985 and other appeal) PLD 1988 Supreme Court 53, this Commission has jurisdiction to interfere only if a case falls within the scope of section 15 of the IRO, 1969. This provision of law provides redress of grievances arising out of victimization for trade union activities only. No other victimization, even if proved, is actionable by this Commission in exercise of jurisdiction created by section 22-A (8) (g) of the IRO, 1969.

9. In the case in hand the petitioners have alleged that they were served with charge-sheets by the management only in order to get rid of them because they have formed an association. On the other hand the respondents have asserted that the petitioners have committed misconduct that they illegally managed gathering of about 300 persons including officers of Pakistan steel on 2-9-2010 at Karachi Press Club at 1620 hours for agitation in which they addressed and demanded releasing of House rent for 27 months alleging that the said has been grabbed by the management, shift allowance, 15% (enhancement in salary) and 50% (enhancement salary) may be paid instantly by using the infra-ulterior words for the management etc. and even if it is presumed that the said charge-sheets have been issued to the petitioners malafidely then also the NIRC has no jurisdiction to interfere because the petitioners do not fall within the ambit of workmen and cannot maintain the petition before this Bench of Commission, therefore the petition filed by the petitioners is not maintainable.

10. Labour Representative appearing on behalf of the petitioners has relied upon 1982 PLC 26, 1979 SCMR 382, PLD 1975 Karachi 342, 1998 PLC 172 and 1988 SCMR 1664 and argued that in the case of Allied Bank of Pakistan v. Muhammad Humayun Khan and others reported in 1988 SCMR observed by the Hon'able Supreme Court of Pakistan that the Bank Manager was a therefore, he submitted that when tour observed by a Bank Manager, superior courts have declared a person who is a Bank Manager as workman as defined by section 25-A of the IRO, 1969. But the facts of by the case in hand are entirely different t o with the for relied upon that the Labour Representative for the petitioners themselves have admitted that they are officers and have formed an Officers Association of Pakistan Steel and these type of associations are only to observe social and welfare activities but shall not raise any industrial dispute as CBA as such they cannot be termed as workmen. In view of above discussed facts and circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the petition is not maintainable and merits no consideration, therefore not only stay application under Regulation 32(2) (c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 but the main petition also stands dismissed. H.B.T.1/NIRC Petition/application dismisse