' My this order shall dispose of the application under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations 1973 (Case No,24(53) of 2002) annexed with the petition under section 22-A (8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 filed by the petitioner with the following prayer :-- "That a prohibitory order may be issued directing the respondents and all others connected with them not to commit acts of unfair labour practice and restrain them from holding illegal gathering at the factory premises on 22-6-2002 so as to avert disruption in production which is of continuous nature (the factory runs round the clock in three shifts of 8 hours each) and also to obviate disorderly and riotous behaviour including law and order situation".
2. Brief facts of the case as set out in the petition are:--
(i) That the petitioner is a Factory registered under section 2(j) of the Factories Act, 1934 while Al- Badar Mazdoor Union, is registered under the I.R.O., 1969 and respondents Nos.1 and 2 are respectively the President and General Secretary of the aforesaid union.
(ii) That after regirtration of the aforesaid union, the respondents instead of maintaining industrial harmony and orderly relationship with petitioner displayed disorderly behaviour compatible with the concept of trade union activities. On 21-6-2002 at about 12.00 Noon the said respondents called on the Factory Manager and threatened that unless the so-called demands in respect of the Factory Workers were conceded they would during working hours on 22-6-2002 at 3-45 P.M. Hold a meeting to raise their voice against the Management. They have also disclosed that on the above date one Babu Idrees an outsider-Labour Leader who claims to be the Chairman of Mutahida Mazdoor Committee of Pakistan would be invited to address the workers.
(iii) That the respondents also threatened the petitioner to pursuade the Deputy Production Manager namely, Mr. Asif Zubair who happens to be the son of the Chief Executive of the Factory not to attend the Factory on 22-6-2002 otherwise he would expose himself physical hazard.
(iv) That the petitioner Factory has been in existence for several years and since its inception no such material irregularity has ever been detected in the observance of labour laws and other legislation. The Factory has remained in operation without any disturbance and complete industrial harmony. But now the respondents have threatened as a first step to achieve their abominable objective to create a situation which eventually adversely affect the economic viability and administrative capability of the Factory.
(v) That the meeting scheduled to be held at the Factory premises on 22-6-2002 during working hours at 3.45 P.M may not only disturb industrial peace in the Factory and in the adjoining industrial area, but may also assume law and order situation for which the local police has been posted by the Management.
(vi) That it is the right guaranteed and secured to the Management under the law that the respondents and other connected persons should act only in accordance with law, not to indulge themselves in agitational activities and not to further commit any act which may be subversive of discipline and tantamount to unfair labour practice. The petitioner is entitled to seek enforcement of its rights guaranteed through the present petition and also prays for adoption of appropriate measures calculated to prevent the respondents from committing unfair labour practice. It is further submitted that facts stated above fall within the mischief of section 16(1)(d) of the I.R.O, 1969.
3. This petition alongwith the application for ad interim orders was placed before me on 22-6-2002 when after taking notice of the facts as mentioned in the petition and after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, copy of the petition and stay application was ordered to be sent to the respondents for their comments/reply with the following directions:-- "Meanwhile the respondents and through them all other connected persons are restrained from committing any act of unfair labour practice such as holding illegal gathering at the Factory premises on 22-6-2002 and not to disturb the production of the factory which is of continuous nature working in three shifts of 8 hours each. They are specifically directed not, to assemble or hold meeting at the Factory premises and obviate disorderly and riotous behaviour including law and order situation" .
' The respondents while filing their written statement and reply to the stay application have resisted and vehemently opposed the petition and controverted the allegations made by the petitioner. The main contentions of the respondents are as under:- I. That the respondents union namely Al-Badar Mazdoor Union was certified as CBA on 20-6-2002 under section 22(1) of I.R.O., 1969. After its certification as CBA on 21-6-2002 the office bearers of the union including the respondents went to the petitioner to deliver a Charter of Demands under section 26(1) of I.R.O., 1969 and requested to receive the same, but he threw the same in a disgraceful manner and threatened to go away from his office as he would not tolerate any union in the establishment. The Charter of Demands was therefore sent through registered post. It is further stated that no disorderly behaviour was displayed which may be incompatible with the concept of trade unionism. It is next contended that the workers were denied statutory benefits such as benefits of "Social Security". "EOBI", "Workers Profit Participation", "Gratuity", "Cost of Living Allowance" and certain other facilities. The respondents have denied the allegations that the petitioner was pressurized to accept the Charter of Demands or threatened of Gate meeting on 22- 6-2002 during working hours. II. That the allegations against the respondents are baseless and concocted and being framed to harass and coerce the respondent's union to give up their genuine rights and also to give up the Demands Notice served upon the petitioner under section 26(1) of I.R.O.
1969. It is further contended that it is the guaranteed right of C.B.A. To undertake Collective Bargaining and the petitioner being the Employer has no right to stop the same. III. That neither any notice of Gate Meeting was issued by the union nor any such meeting was ever held on 22-6-2002 and all allegations are false and baseless and are alleged only to pressurize the CBA union to give up its legal Demands Notice. The respondents have requested that the petition alongwith stay application be dismissed with cost.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and representative of the respondents on the stay application at considerable length and also given my anxious thoughts to the issues involved in the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the petitioner's stand taken in his petition. While justifying filing of the instant petition under section 22-A (8) (g) of I.R.O., 1969 before the Commission on the ground of unfair labour practice, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after registration of their union namely Al-Badar Mazoor Union, the respondents instead of maintaining industrial harmony and orderly relationship with the petitioner displayed 'disorderly behaviour incompatible with the concept of trade union activities. On 21-6-2002, the respondents called upon the Factory Manager and threatened him to accept the so-called demands in respect of the Factory Workers, otherwise they would hold a meeting on 22-6-2002 at 3-45 p.m. During working hourse to raise their voice against the Management. He further contended that even this fact has been admitted by the respondents in para. 3 of their written statement, that on 21-6-2002 the respondents alongwith other office bearers of the union went to the petitioner to deliver a Charter of Demands. He further contended that by using intimidation, coercion and pressure, the respondents have threatened the petitioner to accept the demands, besides extending serious threats of injury to life and limb. He further contended that since they were committing various acts of unfair labour practice, therefore in order to refrain them from these illegal activities, the instant petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R .0, 1969 alongwith application for prohibitory order was filed.
5. Replying to the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner as submitted above, representative of the respondents has strongly opposed the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and strenuously contended that the petitioner has no cause of action and the present petition is misuse of process of law. The petitioner has not come to this Commission with clean hand and has filed this petition with mala fide, hence he is not entitled for any equitable relief. He further contended that the instant petition in the present form is not maintainable as the petitioner has miserably failed to pin-point any specific act of unfair labour practice. They prayer clause of the petition and 'the application is outside the ambit and scope of the power conferred upon the Commission. He further contended that the respondents have never committed any act of unfair labour practice while on the other hand the petitioner has victimized the office bearers and members of the union. He further submitted that though the respondent union have served the Charter of Demands, but they have never made any illegal attempt to compel the petitioner to accept their demands. It is further asserted that allegations of the petitioner are misleading? False and incorrect as the respondents have neither issued any notice of Gate Meeting nor any such meeting was held on 22-6-2002 and have never participated in any illegal activities or resorted to any such acts or omissions which may result commission of unfair labour practice. He has further contended that there is no apprehension regarding omission or commission of any act of unfair labour practice, therefore the petition is liable to he dismissed. He further contended that N.I.R.C. Is a forum of limited jurisdiction which deals with the cases based on allegations of unfair labour practice, therefore the case of the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of the provisions invoked by the petitioner so as to attract jurisdiction of the Commission as this is not the case of unfair labour practice. He has also placed reliance on the following case laws:-- I. 1987 PLC 298 II. 1990 PLC 662
6. Repelling the objections of the representative of the respondent to the competency of the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents themselves admitted that a Charter of Demands is pending settlement, therefore the petitioner strongly apprehend that the respondents would resort to illegal activities to pressurize the petitioner to accept the demands, therefore the main aim of the petition is to prove commission of acts of unfair labour practice.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and representative of the respondents. On minute examination of the pleadings of the parties and their respective version, I find that the admitted fact is that a Charter of Demands served by the respondents upon the petitioner is pending settlement, I am therefore inclined to agree with the contention of the petitioner on the basis of the present record that there is a strong apprehension that the respondents would resort to illegal activities to pressurise the petitioner to accept their demands.
8. As regard the objections raised by the respondent regarding element of unfair labour practice, representative of the respondents has emphasized that there is no element of unfair labour practice, therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed, while on the other hand learned counsel for the petitioner denied the aforesaid assertion. In this connection I hold that allegations of unfair labour practice can only be decided by recording evidence of the parties and accordingly the objection regarding unfair tabour practice raised by the respondents cannot be decided at this stage. Under the circumstances the crux of the matter demands that some pro and contra evidence is necessary to be brought on record for just and proper adjudication of the matter.
9. As discussed above, I am quite satisfied for the present that the petitioner has made out a good prima facie arguable case and all other ingredients for issuance of interim injunction lean in his favour. The petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury if the interim relief sought by him is not granted.
10. Upshot of the above discussion is that the petitioner has made out a good prima facie arguable case of unfair labour practice on the present record, accordingly I have no reason to disagree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently the application under Regulation 32 (2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 is accepted and I direct the respondents and through them all other connected persons not to commit any act of unfair labour practice and not to disturb production of the Factory which is of continuous nature working in three shifts of 8 hours. They are also specifically directed not to hold illegal meeting at the Factory premises during working hours and obviate disorderly and riotous behaviour including law and order situation. The main petition shall now come up on 22-8-2002 for filing of affidavit in evidence by the petitioner.