1995 PLP 418 (PLC)

Abdul Hafeez Amjad for Respondents. This is a petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the IRO, 1969 wherein the petitioner contends that he is the General Secretary of the Heavy Electrical Complex Hattar Labour Union as the said union was formed on 2‑12‑1994. However, neither it is a registered trade union nor enjoying the status of CBA. It was further contended that the respondents management is much annoyed with the formation of the said union and due to this annoyance the members of the petitioner union were victimised and the respondents have thus committed or bent upon committing unfair labour practice with the petitioner and with other members of the petitioner union. This Commission admitted the petition on 18‑12‑1994 and issued interim injunction order on the same day in favour of the petitioner.

2. The petition was strongly contested by the respondents, on merits as well as certain preliminary legal objections as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised. It was mainly contended that the petitioner is not the employee of the respondent's 'establishment nor there exists any union in the respondent's establishment. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed.

3. The respondents have filed certain documents on record, which were not specifically denied by the petitioner and which clearly shows that the petitioner was employed by a private contractor i.e. 4‑D International. His appointment letter was issued by the 4‑D International, vide order dated 3‑9‑1994, his attendance was regularly maintained by the said Contractor i.e. 4‑D International and his services were terminated by the 4‑D International vide termination order dated 16‑11‑1994. There is nothing on record to establish that he is an employee of the Heavy Electrical Complex i.e. the respondent. On the contrary, all such documents show that the petitioner was employed by the Private Contractor i.e. 4‑D International. However, in my view still it is purely a question of fact that whether there exists relationship of employer and employee between 'the parties or otherwise which require evidence.

4. The petitioner has filed petition in the capacity of the General Secretary of the union namely. Heavy Electrical Complex, Hattar Labour Union, which is neither a registered trade union nor is legally existing body. It's registration even was refused by the Registrar, vide his order dated 26‑2‑1995, therefore, the entire petition is not maintainable in the present forum.

5. The petitioner has filed this petition on 18‑12‑1994, wherein he concealed the fact that his services were already terminated/dismissed and obtained an interim injunction order dated 18‑12‑1994 by this Commission, whereas the notice issued by the petitioner under section 25‑A of the IRO, 1969 dated 7‑12‑1994, clarifies that his services were already terminated on 19‑11‑1994, and against such termination the instant notice was issued, thus such concealment renders the petition as not maintainable.

6. In the light of the above discussion I have reached the conclusion that petition is not maintainable rather is a misuse of the process of law, therefore, it is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000 (Rupees two‑ thousand only). H.B.T./222/NIRC Petition dismissed.