Petition against

2011 PLC 136 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25(8)(g) & 17National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.32(2)(c)Unfair labour practice by employerPetition againstStay application

Employee by means of petition under S.25(8)(g) read with S.17 of Industrial Relations Act, 2008 had impugned the transfer order and relieving order passed against him by the employers alleging that said order was passed against him as employer had turned against him due to his lawful trade union activities

Employee had contended that place order to victimize him he had been transferred to a far flung where even the post of Assistant did not exist

Employee further alleged that action of the employers was illegal, void, invalid without lawful authority and amounted to committing of unfair labour practice

Application for issuance of temporary injunction was also filed by the employee

Employee had joined his new place of posting and marked his attendance on daily attendance Register

Employee, in circumstances, had failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour

Stay application merited dismissal.

2011 PLC 133 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

Ss. 22-A(8)(g) & 15National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.32(2)(c)Unfair labour practice by the employersPetition againstStay applicationPetitioners were sportsmen engaged by the employers and their engagement was on contract

Terms of appointment showed that appointees were engaged purely on temporary basis and their engagement could be terminated any time without any notice and assigning any reason; and that the petitioner would have no claim for regular appointment; in certain cases it had been mentioned in the engagement orders that their engagement on contract would be from 1-5-2008 to 31-12-2008 and last contract of the petitioners was extended upto 31-12-2010

Employers, in circumstances, were legally as well as morally bound to retain the petitioners with them upto 31-12-2010; and prior to that they were not to be disturbed

Employers were not supposed to discontinue the contract of petitioners and they were entitled to receive all benefits as agreed mutually including their monthly salary/stipend upto 31-12-2010.

2011 PLC 120 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

S. 22-A(8)(g)National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.32(2)(c)Unfair labour practice by the employersPetition againstStay application

Petitioner (Union) which claimed to be Collective Bargaining Agent in the establishment had alleged that two employees who were office-bearers of the trade union were being compelled to tender their resignation by the Management, which was act of unfair labour practice by the employer

Validity

Petitioner union was not registered with Registrar Industrial Trade Unions and was not Collective Bargaining Agent

Petition filed by the petitioner/union, in the present form by the non-Collective Bargaining Agent was not maintainable

Even otherwise the union could not espouse the cause of individual worker

Pleadings showed only bald and vague allegations, without any substance and no specific instance of unfair labour practice had been quoted

Petition, in circumstances did not fall within the ambit of unfair labour practice

Petitioner/union having failed to establish a case of unfair labour practice, petition and stay application were dismissed.

2011 PLC 92 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

Ss. 25(8)(g) & 17National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.32(2)(c)Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.11-AUnfair labour practice by the employersPetition againstStay applicationClosure of establishment

Petitioners (employees) alleged that their services were terminated as they refused to tender resignation front employment and to accept the offer of "Golden Handshake"

Employer due to financial constraint filed application for permission to close down the establishment, which application was accepted by the Labour Court with the direction to pay all legal dues to the petitioners after settling their account

Petitioners at the time of payment of outstanding dues and other benefits to them did not raise objection with regard to payment of dues to them and their termination from and reinstatement in service

Counsel for the petitioners had contended that petitioners were entitled to be reinstated in service because order of their termination was declared as illegal, not only by the Labour Court, but also by the superior courts

Validity

Contention was not sustainable as though termination order was declared as illegal, but the reinstatement of the petitioners in service was impossible, because not only the whole establishment of the employers was closed down, but the whole establishment along with all assets were sold by the employers

Establishment was not in existence and employers had given cogent detailed reasons in its application filed under Standing Order 11-A of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 for closing of establishment

Petitioners, had voluntarily received their final legal dues through Labour Court and in compliance with the order of High Court, without raising any objection with regard to their dues; legality/illegality of order of their termination

Petitioners had failed to make out any case, of unfair labour practice against the employers and were not entitled to any relief claimed in their petition.

2010 PLC 439 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

S. 25(8)(g)National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.32(2)(c)Unfair labour practice by the employersPetition against

Respondent/employers had asserted that prior to filing of petition by the petitioner/employee against alleged unfair labour practice by the employers, employee was dismissed from service vide dismissal order which was received by the employee

Copy of dismissal order produced by the employers had shown that same was received by the employee through courier service

Employee, at the time of filing of petition being not in the employment of the employers, relief sought by the employee on the ground that during election proceedings of the union, the Management had threatened, for victimization of the employee due to his involvement in trade union activities and election of the union having been held by the Industrial Relations Commission, there remained no cause of action to the employee

On that ground also the petition had become infructuous and was not maintainable.

2010 PLC 226 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

Ss. 49(4)(e) & 63Unfair labour practice by the employersPetition against

Petitioner who claimed to be elected Vice Propaganda Secretary of the workers Union in the employer Hotel, had alleged that due to his trade union activities he was victimized; charge-sheet was issued to him and inquiry was ordered to be initiated with an appointment of the Inquiry Officer of the choice of the employers/management

Petitioner who apprehended his dismissal, discharge, compulsory retirement, transfer or. passing any adverse order, filed petition before National Industrial Relations Commission for a relief in terms of restraining the management not to commit any act of unfair labour practice

Written statement was filed by the employers raising legal and factual objections

In charge-sheet issued to the petitioner very serious charges were levelled against the petitioner

Petitioner who objected to the appointment of the Inquiry Officer, was accommodated and the Inquiry Officer was changed and thereafter the internal inquiry at administrative level had taken its course to the ultimate end and concluded finally

Petitioner participated in the said proceedings throughout

While holding that the dispute between the parties revolved around the facts allegedly constituting misconduct claimed by the management, any interference by the Commission in proceedings of an internal inquiry, was legally not justified, as assuming of jurisdiction by the Commission and adjudicating upon the legal vires of internal inquiry between an employee and management, was out of the jurisdiction of Commission

Exercise of legal rights by management, could not be said as unfair labour practice; and any irregularity, if allegedly committed even in holding inquiry, also did not fall within the ambit of `unfair labour practice' amenable to jurisdiction of the Commission

Petition filed by the petitioner/employee merited failure and was dismissed.

2009 PCrLJ 263 FEDERAL-SHARIAT-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. 11 & 10(3)West Pakistan Family Courts Act (XXXV of 1964), S.21(3)(a)Appreciation of evidence

Main accused was competent to enter into contract of marriage with the alleged abductee after 90 days of the-receipt of the copy of the decree for the dissolution of marriage by the Chairman, as stipulated in S.21(3)(a) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964

Documentary evidence placed on record had destroyed the very foundation of the prosecution case as the abductee was the lawfully wedded wife of the main accused on the day of the alleged occurrence

Co-accused, real brother of main accused, therefore, could not be involved in committing Zina-bil-Jabr with his own sister-in-law and that too within the knowledge of main accused for whom a complex and protracted legal battle had been fought

Question of Zina-bil-Jabr did not arise when the abductee had been repeatedly admitting herself to be the wife of the main accused

Prosecution version which, in the entire trial had acquired a focal status, had not only to be plausible but coherent as well and built-in improbabilities could not be safely relied upon

Narration of facts should be natural and appealing to prudent persons

Conviction of accused could not possibly be based on questionable, unconvincing or a dubious story

Accused were acquitted in circumstances.

2007 PLC 666 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

S. 49(4)(e)National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Regln.32(2)(e)Unfair labour practice by employersPetition againstInterim relief

Petitioner, who was employed in respondents' establishment as Cargo Assistant, had alleged that he fell sick and applied for leave, but instead of granting leave, employers issued show-cause notice and initiated inquiry proceedings against him

Petitioner had further alleged that he was pressurized to resign, otherwise he was threatened to be dismissed under the gari of disciplinary proceedings and that during inquiry proceedings he was transferred from Karachi to Lahore, which act of employers was alleged to be an act of victimization and unfair labour practice

Petitioner in his petition had not mentioned that he was either office-bearer or member of trade union, but had only submitted that he was affiliated and was active supporter of union

No specific instance of alleged victimization prior to transfer order had been mentioned by petitioner in his petition, so as to constitute any act of unfair labour practice on part of employers

Petitioner had himself stated that Trade Union to which he claimed to be affiliated and active supporter, was not even -registered

Held, it could 'not be conceived as to what activities, petitioner had been doing regarding Trade Union, which allegedly caused annoyance to employers so as to victimize him

Issuing of interim relief, was subject to pendency of Industrial dispute under proviso of clause (e) of subsection (4) of S.49 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, while no such industrial dispute was pending

Petitioner had not been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of prohibitory order; and due to non-applicability of provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002, to employers/establishment, petition filed by petitioner, was not maintainable

Petition along with application under Regln.No.32(2)(c) of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, was dismissed and interim prohibitory order passed in favour of petitioner, was recalled.

2007 PLC 640 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

Regln. 32(2)(c)Industrial Relations Ordinance (XCI of 2002), Ss.45(2), 49(4)(e) & 50(3)(a)West Pakistan Industrial Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.13Interim orderGrant, clarification and confirmation ofRetrenchmentUnfair labour practice by employersPetition against

Services of petitioners having been terminated by way of retrenchment, petitioners filed petitions under S.49(4)(e) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002

Petitioners along with said petitions, filed application under Regln.32(2)(c) of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 for grant of interim injunction, which application was accepted and interim order was passed

Employers moved an application under S.50(3)(a) read with S.45(2) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 seeking clarification of interim order

Interim order sought to be clarified was to the effect, "meanwhile the respondents, if had issued letters of termination by way of retrenchment in respect of petitioners, were directed not to give effect to such termination letters till the next date"

Said interim order which was being extended from date to date and continued to operate, was very .clear, unambiguous, unequivocal, very simple, easy to understand and required no further clarification by Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission

Employers had acted on their wrong assumption and had defied to give effect to interim order at their own whim and had cleverly tried to absolve themselves by filing .application seeking clarification of interim order

Court, which possessed jurisdiction to deal with or try the case could pass an interim order, which later on could be held as right or wrong, but the legal course for the other party was to obey and comply with it

If party was aggrieved by said interim order, it could either make submission to the court dealing with the case that same be recalled or vacated or to file an appeal to challenge. its legality, but not to make its own interpretation and disobey same

For grant of interim injunction, besides prima facie case, balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss was to be present in favour of person who sought interim injunction

If interim order in question was not confirmed, it would neither cause any inconvenience nor irreparable loss or injury to petitioners as .later two ingredients did not lie in favour of petitioners, but leaned to the side of employers

Interim order, however, could not-be confirmed as same could only be determined after evidence was recorded, considering whether letters of termination by way of retrenchment of petitioners were act of victimization on account of their trade union activities, arid as such wart acts of unfair labour practice

Application under Regln.32(2)(c) of National Industrial .Relations Commission, (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, was dismissed and interim order was recalled.

2007 PLC 615 NATIONAL-INDUSTRIAL-RELATIONS-COMMISSION Judicial Precedent

S. 49(4)(e)Unfair labour practice by employersPetition againstPetitioners/ employees had alleged that they had been victimized on account of trade union activities

No specific instance of alleged victimization in the past on account of trade union activities had been mentioned by petitioners in their petitions.

Regarding present allegation of victimization and threats by employers, petitioners had yet to establish same by producing evidence

Employers had right to conduct enquiries on the charge-sheet issued against employees and that right could not be curbed or curtailed

Mere issuance of .charge-sheet and holding of enquiry, even if the employee happened to be an office-bearer of the union, was not in itself an act of unfair labour practice on the part of employer

Employer had inherent right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against. alleged delinquent employee and to decide whether the charge levelled against him was correct or not

Ordinarily it did not lie-with National Industrial Relations Commission to intervene while the proceedings were still in progress and to quash such proceedings on the plea of unfair labour practice.