1. ' Claim of the petitioner (Muslim Commercial Bank Limited) is that respondent is a dismissed employee. He was working as an Assistant in Branch Office Hussain Aghai Road, Multan.
2. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. Charge-sheet was issued to him on 20-9-1997.
3. Reply was submitted on 29-9-1997 in which respondent has adopted the plea that he being the office-bearer of the trade union is exempted from the duties at the Bank. Thereafter another notice was issued to him in which he was advised to attend the domestic inquiry. Respondent was subsequently dismissed from service on 7-11-1997. The respondent questioned the validity of order of his dismissal before the Punjab Labour Court No,9 Multan. The matter is subjudice there. The respondent under section 27(b) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 after dismissal has become outsider so he is not legally competent to remain the office-bearer of MCB Staff Union.
4. Even otherwise his tenure has been expired, hence this petition with the prayer that the respondent be restrained to pose himself to be the office-bearer of MCB Staff Union and to act accordingly.
(2) Main petition was also accompanied by an application for temporary injunction, till final disposal of the case.
(3) Both the petitions were vigorously contested. Preliminary objection was raised, that it is not a case of unfair labour practice so this Commission lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon this petition.
5. Petitioner has not come to the Commission with clean hands. On facts it was asserted that the matter of dismissal of the respondent is subjudice before the competent Court. In fact respondent has falsely implicated in a case only to kick him out of service because of his trade union activities.
6. Other assertions of the petitioner were refuted with the submissions that under section 7 of the I.R.O.
7. Respondent is legally competent to remain the office-bearer of the union.
(4) Arguments heard. Record perused.
(5) From the record, it is crystal clear that the instant petition was filed on 12-6-2000. So there is no denial of the fact that tenure of the trade union had already expired. It is not the case of the respondent that he again has been elected office-bearer of the said union. This is also an admitted fact that the respondent has been dismissed from the service of the petitioner. The Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 which was subsequently incorporated in Banking Companies Amendment Act 1997 is a codified law. In view of the section 27(b) of the said Ordinance, the outsider could not become member or office bearer of a Registered Trade Union of a Bank. This fact has further been fortified by the Hon' able Sindh High Court in a case titled "Bank of American Employees Union v. Federation of Pakistan. Relevant para reads as under:-- "It is indeed correct that the right to elect outsider as office-bearer to the maximum of 25 per cent which was available to the trade union under the I.R.O. Seems to have been taken away by the impugned legislation (which is section 27-B of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962.".
(6) In the light of above facts I need not to further probe into the merits of the case, Respondent is no more employee of the MCB. Tenure of the trade union in which he was elected as General Secretary had already expired, so to meet with the prayer of the petitioner there is no need to record evidence. The request of the petitioner is genuine which is allowed. Resultantly the main petition succeeds to it. There is no need to pass any order about the application for temporary injunction. Petition stands accepted. File be consigned to the Record Room after its completion.