2014 PLP 145 (PLC)

CH. SHAUKAT NAWAZ GORAYA (MEMBER).

I intend to dispose of both the above titled petitions together with this single order as the petitions are interlinked and same question of law in involved in both the petitions.

2. The petitioner union brought these petitions under section 22-A (8)(g) of IRO, 1969. It was contended that petitioner was a duly registered trade union of the workmen employed in the Gujrat Zone of UBL and was CBA. The respondents became hostile towards the office-bearers and members of the petitioner union due to their lawful trade union activities. In order to victimize them the office bearers were charge sheeted on the allegations that they were habitual absentees. Besides serving of the charge sheets certain other acts were also pointed out and it was alleged that all these actions of the respondents amounted to committing of unfair labour practice and it resorted to intimidate and coercive the office-bearers of the petitioner union so that they leave the trade union activities. They were transferred to remote places, their leave applications were refused, closure of union offices and disconnection of telephone and other facilities.

3. It was prayed that respondents be restrained from commission of further acts of unfair labour practice so as transfer, termination or dismissal of the office bearers and members of the petitioner union from service, to declare the service of the charge sheets as illegal, void and any other relief which deemed just and proper also be granted.

4. The petitions were resisted by the respondents.

5. During the pendency of the petitions the respondents filed applications under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the petitions in both above referred cases. It was contended that petitioner union was registered with local Registrar of Trade Unions of Gujrat. The instant petition was filed under IRO, 1969 when no CBU was determined in the establishment of UBL. Later during the year 2005-06 in Case No.19(07)/02 decided on 6-4-2006 and reported as 2007 PLC page 279 the name of applicant union did not even appear in either as a provincial registered union or industry-wise trade union. Therefore, during the intervening period the applicant provisionally registered trade union had ceased to exist. It was further alleged that in absence of trans Provincial status of the applicant union and further the union has been cancelled/ ceases to exist, the provisions of IRA, 2012 are not applicable and this Commission has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. It was prayed that instant petitions have become infructuous, therefore, same are liable to be dismissed.

6. These applications filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. were resisted by the petitioner union, and inter alia it was contended that order of this Commission referred in the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 in Case No.19(07)/07 decided on 6-6-2004 was for a period of five years and petitioner union was not a party in that case. Furthermore, the registration of the petitioner union at the provincial was not cancelled by this Commission. It was prayed that application be dismissed.

7. I heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and examined relevant record.

8. The perusal of record shows that petitioner union was registered with local RTU for Gujrat Zone and it has not attained trans provincial character till to date. It was contended by the respondents in the application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 that the name of the petitioner union did not appear either as locally registered trade union or industry-wise trade union in the lists which were submitted by the provincial Registrar of Trade Unions Punjab/RITU and were filed in NIRC. Learned counsel for the petitioner union stated during the course of arguments that petitioner union still existed in the record of provincial RTU and the management of UBL had got the name of the petitioner union missing from the list submitted to the RTU. This case has been reported as 2007 PLC page 279, para No.1 of this judgment has been perused. The list which was submitted by the RTU Punjab does not find mention the name of the petitioner union. Moreover, after the determination of two CBUs dated 6-4-2006, thereafter extension of CBU for five years on 8-2-2011 and specially after IRO, 2011 and promulgation of IRA, 2012. Consequent to the 18th Amendment of the Constitution whereby this Commission can only hear cases in respect of industry-wise trade unions and not unions registered with Provincial RTUs and whose membership is restricted only to one province.

9. In view of aforementioned circumstances as stated above, the petitioner union has not attained the character of industry-wise trade union, therefore, the provisions of IRA, 2012 are not applicable and this Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon these petitions. The applications filed under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. merit acceptance, same are therefore, accepted and it is held that instant petitions cannot proceed, hence, dismissed accordingly. There is no order as to costs. HBT/11/NIRC Petitions dismissed.