2022 PLP 179 (PLC)
M. ABBAS RAZA Versus IESCO.
| Citation | 2022 PLP 179 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Noor Zaman, Member |
| Parties | M. ABBAS RAZA Versus IESCO. |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 PLP 179 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Act (X of 2012) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2022 PLP 179 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Noor Zaman, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2022 PLP 179 (PLC) (M. ABBAS RAZA Versus IESCO.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Babu M. Idrees, Labour Rep. for Petitioner.
- Amjad Zaman Khan for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.33 & 31
Redressal of individual grievances
Unfair labour practices on the part of employers
Scope
Petitioner complained of unfair labour practices on the part of respondent contending that he was placed under suspension merely on the ground that he was a trade unionist and an office bearer of the trade union of his own choice but the management was annoyed due to his lawful trade union activities
Petitioner had failed to indicate any incident of unfair labour practice
Inquiry against an employee on misconduct was prerogative of the employer which could not be interfered
Establishment had withdrawn the charge sheet and show cause notice issued to the petitioner
Petitioner had not submitted any proof regarding unfair labour practice on the part of employer nor mentioned any specific instance of his trade union activities for which act the establishment punished him
Judgment & Decree
NOOR ZAMAN, MEMBER.
The instant petition has been filed under section 31 of I.R.A., 2012, wherein the petitioner contended that he is working as Line Superintendent in respondent Company. That the petitioner was issued show-cause notice on 30-9-2018 and on 4-10-2018. The petitioner has been placed under suspension with immediate effect for the 3rd time and also been attached with Manager (Operation) IESCO Circle Chakwal for attendance purpose, the suspension of is illegal unlawful and a sort of punishment because petitioner has been directed to mark his attendance in Chakwal.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 4-10-2018 and 3-9-2018 show-cause notice are vide ab initio, illegal, unlawful and an act of unfair labour practice on the part of employer. That no regular inquiry has been conducted in the instant case and the impugned show-cause notice dated 3-9-2018 is merely on the ground that the petitioner is trade unionist and office bearer of the trade union of his own choice but the management is annoyed with the petitioner due to his lawful trade union activities and prayed for acceptance of the instant petition.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the petitioner is LS-I in BS-16 therefore, the petitioner is not a workman as held by this Commission in Case No.4A(194)/2017. He further stated that no incident of unfair labour practice, therefore, the petition is not maintainable and liabel to be dismissed. The petitioner has not mentioned any cause of action and has not pointed out any of his trade union activity on which the respondent is annoyed. 3.(sic) Arguments heard and record perused.
4. Since the petitioner has failed to indicate any incident of unfair labour practice and that the inquiry against any employee on misconduct is prerogative of the employer which cannot be interfered as such. Learned counsel for the respondent in his reply stated that the charge sheet and show-cause notice issued to the petitioner have been withdrawn vide order dated 17-10-2018. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has not submitted any proof regarding unfair labour practice on the part of employer nor mentioned any specific instance of his trade union activities, for which act the respondent establishment punishment him for the trade union activities.
5. In view of the upshot of the case the petition along with application and complaint is hereby dismissed. File be consigned to R.R. after due completion. SA/4/NIRC Petition dismissed.