1989 PLP 441 (PLC)

2. The facts as alleged are that respondents dispensed with the services of 5 trade union sympathisers on 4-2-1985, without assigning any reason, leading to unrest among workers. Union Officers tried to placate the respondents on Z1-2-1985, but they threatened them with dire consequences and terminated the services of three more workers. The union sent a notice of its demands and also )asted its copy on the notice board. Respondents reacted by laying off the entire actory strength w.e,f. 24-2-1985. The union retaliated with a strike notice on 1-5-1985 and affixed its copy on the notice board, which resulted in respondent's sifting of the lockout on 11-8-1985. Respondents pressurised Adalat Khan to leave he union and did not allow five more workers to enter the factors w.e.f. 3-3-1985. They charge-sheeted 10 petitioners-members and office-bearers of the anion without any rhyme or reason. About the charge-sheets the petition states: "12.That the charge-sheets were issued during and after lifting of illegal lock out in order to pressurise the petitioners from taking part in trade union activities and method behind the issuance of charge-sheets is only to terminate services of all office-bearers and active members of the union and consequently render the union ineffective. 13.That the above acts of the respondents clearly Constitute unfair labour practice and consequently a guaranteed and secured right accrued in favour of petitioners and as such charge-sheets are liable to be quashed." 4.I have head both sides who also submitted their written arguments. 5.The legal objection taken by respondents is that: "The legal stand of the petitioner is given in paras. 11, 12 and 13 which are (1) The petitioners have been issued notices without any rhyme or reason'. This omnibus ground is probably meant to mean that all eleven persons have not committed the misconduct alleged against them separate show-cause notice. (2) `The show-cause has been issued after lifting lock out to pressurise the petitioner and motive is to terminate unionist.' The petition does not disclose the nature of activities of the petitioners which infuriated the management. There is no mention as to why Razzak and Hanif were being pressurised and pressurised to do what? The petition is silent. The issuance of a show-cause notice has yet to be construed as a `pressure' in terms of section 15 of the I.R.O. 1969."

6. The petitioners on one hand state that they have been served show-cause notices "without any rhyme or reason". On the other hand they pray that respondents be restrained from terminating their services on the basis of those show-cause notices. In other words they want that the show cause notices be quashed without any inquiry by employer. Issuance of show-cause notice is a part A of the process of holding an inquiry into an allegation of misconduct under Standing Order 15 of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. This being a statutory requirement the prayer cannot be granted.

7. The petition is consequently also dismissed in respect of petitioners Nos. 2and

4. M.Y.H./132/NIRC Petition dismissed.