PLASTICRAFTERS LABOUR UNION, C.BA., KARACHI Versus PLASTICRAFTERS (PVT.)LIMITED

ORDER

Order on Miscellaneous application for interim stay:

This order will dispose of stay application filed alongwith main petition whereby applicants have prayed that during the pendency of the main petition respondents be directed not to dismiss, discharge, remove, retrench, transfer or terminate them from service and not to take any action on the basis of their trade union activities or alleged ex parte enquiry against them or force them to tender resignations; it is also prayed that respondents be directed to produce enquiry proceedings and report of Inquiry Officer.

2. On this application on 22‑8‑1992 ad interim stay was granted to the applicants with a direction to the respondents not to terminate the applicants from service and also to produce enquiry papers. This application is supported by the affidavits of all the applicants in which they have relied upon the contents of the main petition.

3. This application arises out of main petition filed under section 32(2)(a)(b)(c) & (d) of NIRC (P & F) Regulations, 1973 wherein it is stated that applicant No. 1 is the union but its General Secretary is not employee of the respondents while the remaining applicants are employees of the respondents who are performing their job with effect from 30‑8‑1992 in pursuance of the order of Full Bench of the Commission and that they are all office‑bearers of the said union but they have been illegally locked out. It is stated that they have submitted charter of demands on which dispute could not be resolved and instead respondents had issued false charge- sheets against them and hereafter on 13‑5‑1990 they were not allowed to work till 17‑5‑1990. Accordingly applicant No. l filed similar case in which interim order was passed on 5‑6‑1990 and thereafter they also participated in the inquiry proceedings against them but the Inquiry Officer is alleged to have acted illegally; however the said earlier case was dismissed on 31‑8‑1991 by this Bench of the Commission where after applicant‑union filed appeal before Full Bench of the Commission which was allowed by an order dated 26‑7‑1992 and the respondents are said to have been directed to allow the applicants to perform their duties. Accordingly the applicants submitted their joining report on 2‑8‑1992 but thereafter it is alleged that each of the applicants were being asked by the respondents to tender resignations against which applicant No. 1 sent protest letter dated 16‑8‑1992 but the respondents have continued their aforesaid unfair labour practice as such the petition was filed on 22‑8‑1992 with the prayer to hold said acts as unfair labour practice, to direct respondents‑not to dismiss, discharge, remove, transfer, retrench, terminate the applicants from service, direct the respondents not to take action against the applicants on the basis of said charge‑sheets, and also to produce the proceedings for scrutiny of this Commission.

3. In rebuttal, the respondents filed legal objections and comments in which it is mainly contended that the applicants are abusing the process of law to prevent action of lawful disciplinary proceedings which were supervised by Mr. Inam Ali Kehar, Deputy Registrar of this Commission and that allegations levelled by the applicants are false. It may be mentioned that the original inquiry papers were filed by the respondents which were with the Commission for about two months where after they were permitted to take them away for production before the Labour Court.

4. This stay application came up for hearing on 21‑4‑1993, 8‑5‑1993 arid 10‑5‑1993. Heard Mr. Gohar Iqbal, the learned counsel on behalf of applicants and Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, the learned counsel on behalf of respondents, and perused the record. It is contended on behalf of the applicants that they are not being allowed to perform their duties properly that they are being discouraged from trade union activities and also forced by respondents to resign from service. It was further argued that there is stay by the High Court according to which respondents cannot take final action on disciplinary proceedings against the applicants whereas learned Advocate for the respondents contended that the applicants are performing their duties in pursuance of the order of the Full Bench of the Commission, that there is no independent indication in support of the allegation that applicants are being discouraged by the respondents in their trade union activities or asked to resign from union. It was also argued that the stay has been granted to the respondents "in the Constitution petition filed by them against the order of Full Bench of this Commission and said order is not applicable upon present proceedings. In the end it was argued that applicants are confusing the Commission and abusing the process of law so that no lawful order is passed on the lawful disciplinary proceedings original of which were filed before this Commission.

5. With regard to allegation of unfair labour practice there is word against word and therefore it is held that the applicants have failed to make out prima facie case by showing even indication through independent evidence that they were ever discouraged by the respondents from pursuing trade union activities, or, that they were ever asked by the respondents to resign from the post. Then the case diary shows that original inquiry proceedings were filed by the respondents before this Commission, which were here for about two months and could have been inspected by the learned counsel of applicants to pinpoint any illegality or irregularity but the same was not shown. It is also seen that the said proceedings were supervised by Mr. Inam Ali Kehar, Deputy Registrar of this Commission.

6. Finally perusal of the stay order of the High Court shows that the same has been granted to the respondents in their Const. Petition against the order of the Full Bench of the Commission. The application for the stay produced before this Commission shows that in that the High Court has been requested to stay the proceedings of complaint No. 4(51)/91‑K and also to suspend the order of the Full Bench of the Commission mentioned above but there is no mention in it with regard to present case being No. 24(153)/92‑K. In any case even the said order does not prohibit from deciding interlocutory application.

7. In view of the above discussion it is held that since applicants have failed to make out prima facie case as such they are not entitled to stay and thereof re this application is hereby dismissed. Consequently the order of ad interim stay passed on 22‑8‑1992 is also hereby vacated.

H.B.T./191/NIRC Appeal dismissed.