1991 PLP 338 (PLC)

(d) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)

Ss.22(8)(g) & 34--Unfair labour practice--Allegation of unfair labour practice is a serious matter and if proved a person could even be sent to jail for committing this offence--Allegations of such kind must, therefore, be levelled with due care, caution, responsibility and detail--Vague and general statements, conclusions and surmises are not sufficient to make out a case of unfair labour practice--Bare allegations in absence of verifiable details and specific circumstances are not sufficient to establish unfair labour practice. Asghar Mahmood for Applicants. Ziaullah for Respondents. Petitioner United Labour Union is a C.B.A. for Punjab Road Transport Corporation (Intercity) Depot Multan. The people at the helm of affairs are alleged to be siding with the P.IA.M. Union under fear of their rowdyism to please the Minister Transport Punjab, who belongs to Jamat-e-Islami and allegedly extends favours to P.IA.M. Union which is a subsidiary of Jamat-e- Islami. Respondent No.l describing himself as Director Operations issued a posting order dated 10-8-1989 in collusion with the P.I.A.M. Union and appointed members and supporters of P.I.A.M. Union as checkers to crush the petitioner union and its Members although he had no jurisdiction and legal authority to pass those orders. These orders have been issued because of the trade union activities of the petitioner union and are discriminatory of nature. No such orders have been issued in respect of any other Depots of P.R.T.C. and only workers of petitioner union have been singled out. Respondent No.2 issued the impugned order, dated 16-8-1989 on the basis of orders of respondent No .1, dated 10-8-1989. Unlike this time, the posting of the checking staff was always made at the Depot level in past. It is prayed that the orders dated the 10th and 16th August, 1989 passed by respondents Nos.l and 2 may be suspended till the final decision of the main petition.

2. This petition was filed before my learned brother Dr. Munir Ahmad Mughal, on 13-9-1989 who suspended the operation of the impugned order dated 10-8-1989 on 23-10-1989.

3. The learned counsel for the respondents assails the petition/stay application on the following three grounds namely:- (a) that the persons who shall be affected by the said impugned transfer and posting orders, have not been made party although they were necessary parties. Non-joinder of necessary parties is fatal to this case (b) there is no narration of any incident or description of any specific detail in the petition. A bare allegation devoid of any detail or specific allegations does not constitute unfair labour practice; and (c) if the respondent No.l had no legal authority as alleged then the matter ought to have been taken before the Court competent to adjudicate upon it and not before the N.I.R.C.

4. The counsel for the petitioners states that since this is a collusive order, therefore, no rights flow from it and impleading the affected parties was not necessary. He further stated that he was challenging the vires of the impugned orders. The post of Director Operations being a statutory post Mr. Farasat Mand Khan could not work against it while somebody else still holds that post. The orders are consequently void. Further, P.I.A.M. Union not being a C.BA. for their Depot, Respondents had no right to negotiate with them and to post members of P.I.A.M. against the posts held by petitioner union. Though it was not necessary to give details of collusion and discrimination amounting to unfair labour practice he would prove it in evidence. However, unfair labour practice was not far to seek as only the members of P.I.A.M. Union have been posted in the place of members of the petitioner union who have been transferred.

5. I agree with the plea taken by learned counsel for the respondents that the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of the necessary parties, because the parties who would be adversely affected, if the petition is granted, have not been joined and this renders the petition incompetent. For this proposition of law I rely on the dictum in the case cited as Maqbool Begum v. Ghulam and another P L D 1982 S C 46 and Mrs. M. Water-field v. C.E. Lee Anan P L D 1957 Lah.

882. The petitioners' plea that since vires of the transfer orders were to be challenged, therefore, there was no need to implead necessary parties is misconceived. Necessary parties had to be joined whether the transfer was challenged on the basis of vires or otherwise. I also agree with the learned counsel that if the vires of the impugned order had to be challenged then the same had to be done before a competent Court. As it is, the N.I.R.C. takes cognizance of those matters, in respect of a locally registered Trade Union, which proceed on allegation of unfair labour practice.

6. Further, the allegations in this petition are vague, unspecific and bereft of detail. The allegation proceeds on the conclusion that since the petitioner union's members have been transferred and those belonging to rival union posted in their places, therefore, there has been collusion between respondents and P.IA.M. Union. This is a conclusion and not an argument. Even as a conclusion it is inapt because this is not the only conclusion which could be drawn in the circumstances. Can it not be possible that the transfers were made bona fide or on the basis of seniority, or with a view to increasing efficiency, or by transferring that staff which had served for three years on a checking post, to prevent collusion between the checkers and the checked? The petition/application does not state anything beyond the repeated statement that the transferees have been transferred because of their trade union membership and allegiance and collusion of respondents with P.IA.M. Union. As for lack of details, the petition, beyond the assertion that the transferees are the members of the union does not give their names or the membership numbers or even affidavits of its own members. It does not give the details of members of rival union i.e. those posted in their place, beyond a bald assertion that they are members of their-rival the P.I.A.M. Union. It does not state when, where, how and before whom, the alleged collusion, on which their entire case hinges, took place. An allegation of unfair labour practice is a serious matter. If proved a person could even be sent to jail for committing this offence. An allegation of unfair labour practice must, therefore, be levelled with due care, caution responsibility and detail. Vague and general statements, conclusions and surmises are not sufficient to make out a case of unfair labour practice. Bare allegations in the absence of verifiable details and specific circumstances are not sufficient to establish unfair labour practice. I would rely on the dicta enunciated in this behalf in the following three authorities; namely Nazar Muhammad, General Manager, Telephone Industries of Pakistan Haripur and another v. Ghulam Akber and 4 others 1988 P L C 923, Jubilee Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Karachi v. Blader Khan and 8 others 1975 P L C 24; and National Bank of Pakistan Peoples' Federation v. N.I.R.C. Islamabad 1975 P L C 756.

7. But apart from these points raised by learned counsel I am also of the view that the present stay application is not maintainable because the petitioner union has no locus standi to bring this petition. The petitioner has brought the instant petition under section 22-A(8)(g) read with section 34 of I.R.O., 1969. F Section 34 (ibid) envisages the C.BA. to get enforced the rights guaranteed to it (i.e. C.B.A. itself) and not those guaranteed to its workers. Thus, on this ground also the stay application is liable to be dismissed. For this view of law, I place reliance on Sindh Alkalis Ltd., Karachi v. Workers' Union and another P L D 1979 Kar. 473; Crescent Jute Products Ltd., Jaranwala v. Workers Union 1982 PLC 483; and Karachi Transport Corporation Workers Union v. Karachi Transport Corporation N L R 1981 T D 378 at page 382.

8. In this view of the matter the stay application is dismissed and the stay order already issued is recalled. The main petition shall come up for arguments on maintainability on a date in office. M.Y.H./157/N.I.R.C. Petition dismissed.