' GHULAM NAUM AN SHAIKH (MEMBER).-This is petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 filed by Mazdoor Union Faran Sugar Mills Limited (CBA) through Abdul Karim Mangwano against M/s Faran Sugar Mills Limited, its Chief Executive/Managing Director and Syed Mansoor Alam, General Manager, respondents and along with it an application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations, 1973 supported by an affidavit of Abdul Karim Mangwano, General Secretary.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is registered trade union and CBA in the respondent- establishment. Abdul Karim Mangwano is elected General Secretary since 18-10-1999. It is alleged that the respondents ate against the trade union. Several times the respondents have threatened to dismiss the union office-bearers and the workers. The petition was filed before the N.I.R.C, and interim stay was obtained. The petitioner union had served charter of demands dated 10-2000 on the respondents who showed much resistance but the petitioner union to display its soft attitude arrived to a settlement for a period of two years on 27-1-2001. Thereafter the union withdrew all the cases from N.I.R.C. The respondents continued with inimical attitude and did not give increase to 90 workers as agreed in the settlement so as* to lay down the Union before the workers. Meeting was held between the petitioner-Union and the respondent in the head office on 7-8-2001 wherein the respondents asked the union office-bearers to accept their demand, not to hold the referendum, withdraw the case filed under S.34 of I.R.O., 1969 from the Labour Court, extend one year period in the settlement already executed and not to give application for audit of balance-sheet at the end of financial year. The office-bearers of the Union refused to accept the demands put by the respondents. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 issued threats of disciplinary action against the office- bearers consequent whereof their dismissal and retrenchment of the workers. The respondents served a letter on the General Secretary, Annex.A/10 which was replied as Annex.A/11. The respondents then served charge-sheets on office-bearers of the petitioner-Union, Annex.A/12 to A/19. It is alleged that on 24-8-2001 respondent No,3 called General Secretary of the petitioner- Union in his office and asked him to accept above said four demands otherwise threatened to retrench large number of workers as mentioned in the list, Annex.A/20 and dismiss the office- bearers. It is prayed that the respondents be restrained from victimizing dismissing or transferring the office-bearers and workers as mentioned in Annex.A/20 for not accepting their illegal demands.
3. On presentation of the petition after hearing Rana Mahmood Ali Khan, learned Labour Representative for the petitioner ad interim prohibitory order was passed on 30-9-2001 restraining the respondents from dismissing terminating or transferring the office bearers of the petitioner- Union till the next which was extended till 17-1-2002. Thereafter it was not extended as it appears from the diary sheet.
4. The respondents filed reply with preliminary legal objections on main petition as well as counter- affidavit on stay application. The legal objections raised by the respondents are that CBA cannot espouse the cause of individual workers. The petitioner-Union is not an industry-wise trade union as such N.I.R.C. Has no jurisdiction to deal with the case filed by trade union registered with Provincial Registrar of Trade Unions and the jurisdiction lies with Labour Court. There are vague and unspecific allegations which do not constitute unfair labour practice as such the petition is not maintainable. The retrenchment, dismissal or removal from service of the workers is statutory and legal right of the employer guaranteed and secured under the law which cannot be curtailed as such the petition is not maintainable. On the facts the respondents denied the allegation of unfair labour practice levelled by petitioner-Union. The respondents denied that they are against the trade union activities. They also denied the victimization and threats to the office-bearers and members of petitioner-Union for their retrenchment or removal from service. The petitioners stated that the petitioner-Union has resorted to various acts of unfair labour practice and on 8-8-2001 the workers had resorted to illegal strike which continued upto 15-8-2001 as such a case of unfair labour practice was filed by the respondents bearing No,4A(172)/2001-K. Before this Commission wherein interim prohibitory order was passed. The respondent-management also has submitted form 'Y' to the Labour Department, Hyderabad wherein Labour Department took cognizance and the report was submitted for cessation of work and a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner-Union which has been filed with reply as Annex.R/6 & R/7. The respondents denied that any alleged demands were made to the petitioner or they were compelled to accept the same otherwise they would retrench and dismiss the workers and office-bearers of the Union. All these allegations are stated to be false and baseless. The respondents stated that letter, Annex.A/10 to the petition was issued by the respondents to convey to the office-bearers that they are not absolved from performing their actual duties and they should desist from trade union activities during working hours. They have submitted that the respondent-management in exercise of their legal right had issued charge-sheet to the office-bearers whose replies being unsatisfactory, inquiry letters were issued to them. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report. They stated that out of 8 office-bearers disciplinary inquiries were initiated against three office-bearers, namely, Abdul Karim Mangwano, Qadir Bux Mallah and Muhammad Saleem Pathan which were completed before passing ad interim prohibitory order which have been filed as Annex. R/25 to R/27 and the inquiry reports Annex.R/28 to R/30. Since the charges were proved against these three office-bearers before passing of ad interim prohibitory order they were issued letters of dismissal which have been filed as Annex.R/31 to R/23. The letters of dismissal were sent on their postal addresses as available on record through registered post, Annex. R/34 to R/36. Copies of dismissal letters were also sent to Additional Director Labour, Hyderabad and also to this Bench of Commission and were affixed on notice board of the factory at main gate. It is denied that respondent No,3 called the General Secretary of the Union on 24-8-2001 in his office and asked him to accept the demands otherwise there would be retrenchment/dismissal/removal of large number of workers. They have denied that any unfair labour practice has been committed or is likely to be committed by the respondents.
5. Abdul Karim Mangwano General Secretary of the petitioner-Union filed his affidavit-in-rejoinder.
Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the respondents filed a statement on 30-7-2002 thereby he annexed photocopy of Application bearing No,16 of 2002 filed by Abdul Karim Mangwano against Faran Sugar Mills Ltd. Under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 before the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad against dismissal from service and also submitted therein that Qadir Bux Mallah who also was dismissed has submitted written apology and for clearance of his dues and requested for a job and after settlement of his dues he had been provided fresh employment. Muhammad Saleem Pathan also requested for dues in full and final settlement. The documents have been annexed with the statement. In the statement it is submitted that since two of the office-bearers cleared their dues and Abdul Karim Mangwano also was dismissed from service and filed petition before the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad the present petition has become infructuous. On this statement Rana Mahmood Ali Khan, Labour Representative for the petitioner filed reply wherein he has stated that there are 20 office-bearers and the dismissal letters had not been served on them. The said letters produced by the respondents had not been served on the office-bearers of the Union. However he admitted that Abdul Karim Managwano had filed petition before the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad.
6. Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the respondents also filed statement on 31-8- 2004 annexed therewith a copy of order dated 21-8-2004 passed in the Complaint No,132 of 2003 by the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad under section 12(1) of the I.R.O., 2002 whereby the Labour Court allowed the Registrar to cancel the registration of the petitioner-Union. Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned advocate for the respondents also filed statement on 21-9-2004 that in pursuance to the order dated 21-8-2004 of Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad, the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad has cancelled the registration of the Union by his order dated 28-8-2004 which is annexed with the statement.
7. I have heard arguments of Rana Mahmood Ali Khan, learned Labour Representative for the petitioner and Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned advocate for the respondents.
8. Rana Mahmood Ali Khan, learned Labour Representative for the petitioner has contended that Abdul Karim Mangwano is an elected General Secretary of petitioner-Union. The respondents are against the trade union. After much resistance a settlement was arrived between the petitioner- Union and respondent-management. Cases filed before the N.I.R.C. Were therefore withdrawn. He contended that the respondents put pressure on Abdul Karim Mangwano General Secretary of petitioner-Union to withdraw application for holding of referendum and had filed a case through pocket union before N.I.R.C. And got stay order and since the respondents Mill is seasonal factory and the season was over stay such the referendum could not held. He contended that the respondents had put illegal demands to the General Secretary of petitioner-Union and on his refusal the respondents had served charge-sheets on Abdul Karim Mangwano and other office- bearers of the petitioner-Union and threatened them of their dismissal. It is contended that Abdul Karim Mangwano without holding of any inquiry had been dismissed from service, whereas from Qadir Bux Mallah under duress resignation and pardon had been obtained and the other office- bearers are on duty. He contended that Abdul Karim Mangwano, General Secretary of petitioner- Union had filed a petition before Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad which has been disposed of by the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad and the said order of the Sxith Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad had been challenged by him by filing appeal before Hon'ble Sindh High Court, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad. He has contended that Abdul 'Karim Mangwano General Secretary has not taken his dues from the respondents.
9. Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the respondents has contended that all the office-bearers except Abdul Karim Mangwano have taken their dues as full and final settlement, such vouchers have been produced by the respondents. Abdul Karim Mangwano had filed his grievance petition before the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad, who did not allow reinstatement but granted compensation as such the said order of the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad has been challenged by Abdul Karim Mangwano as well as by the respondents by filing appeals before the Hon'ble Sindh High Court, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad. It is contended that a complaint was filed by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad for cancellation of registration of petitioner union and the Sixth Sindh Labour Court Hyderabad by its order dated 21-8-2004 passed under S.12(1) of the I.R.O., 2002 in Complaint No,132 of 2003 has allowed the complaint for cancelling the registration of petitioner-Union by the Registration of Trade Union. In pursuance to the said order the Registrar of Trade Union, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad has cancelled the registration of the petitioner-Union by his order dated 28-8-2004, which has been placed on record. It is contended that now the petitioner-Union is not body corporate under the provisions of section 14 of I.R.O., 2002, as such the petition has become infructuous. It is contended that the petition is confined only to the office-bearers of the union and they are no more now in the employment of the respondents. The petition is, therefore, not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.
10. I have considered arguments advanced by Rana Mahmood Ali Khan, learned Labour Representative for the petitioner and Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the respondents and have gone through the ptition, application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C.
(P&F) Regulations, 1973, supporting affidavit, comments with preliminary legal objections, counter- affidavit, affidavit-in-rejoinder and the documents produced by the parties with their pleadings.
11. The petition was filed on 3-9-2001 by petitioner-Union through Abdul Karim Mangwano General Secretary and in support of this fact that Abdul Karim Managwano is an elected General Secretary of the Union a letter of Assistant Director Labour (Trade Unions) dated 18-10-1999, Annex/A/2 was filed with the petition, which shows that Abdul karim Mangwano was elected General Secretary in general body meeting held on 13-10-1999 by way of resignation. Another letter showing the change of office-bearers dated 3-4-2000 by Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad, Annex.A/3 was filed with the petition showing therein 12 office-bearers to have been elected on other posts in general body meeting held on 13-3-2000 and so also a letter dated 30-8-2001, showing the change of two office- bearers President and Joint Secretary elected in general body meeting held on 21-8-2001.
Thereafter no change has been placed on record. There is therefore no document placed on record by Abdul Karim ,Mangwano that till today he continues to be the General Secretary of the Union. Under section 7(1)(j) of I.R.O., 1969 the term of the office-bearers to hold office was not exceeding two years from the date of his election or re-election, and now as contemplated under section 6(1)(j) of the I.R.O., 2002, the term of the office-bearer to hold office is not exceeding three years from the date of his election or re-election. There is nothing on record to show that Abdul Karim Mangwano still continues to be General Secretary of the petitioner-Union. Moreover a Complaint bearing No,132 of 2003 was filed before Sixth Sindh Labour Court Hyderabad under section 12(1) of the I.R.O., 2002. For cancellation of petitioner-Union, who by its order dated 21-8- 2004 has allowed the Registrar to cancel registration of the Petitioner-Union: Consequent to the said order of the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad dated 21-8-2004, the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region, Hyderabad by his order dated 28-8-2004 has cancelled the registration of the petitioner-Union. Hence the petitioner Union, being non-existent and not a body corporate and present status of Abdul Karim Mangwano as General Secretary also not on record, it, therefore, cannot continue to sue the petition.
12. Moreover the charge-sheets were issued to Abdul Karim Mangwano and other office-bearers of the petitioner-Union. Abdul Karim Mangwano was dismissed from service. He filed an application under S.25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 before the Sixth Sindh Labour Court, Hyderabad, who did not allow reinstatement but allowed him compensation. Abdul Karim. Mangwano as well as respondents are said to have now filed appeals before the Hon'ble High Court Sindh, Circuit Bench, Hyderabad against the order passed by the Labour Court. Regarding other office-bearers it is contended by Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the respondents that they have taken their dues in full and final settlement and they are no more in their employment except Qadir Bux Mallah who is said to have been given fresh employment. Regarding other workers as mentioned in list Annex.
A/20 no ad interim prohibitory order was passed on 3-9-2001 and there is no any specific instance of unfair labour practice alleged against those workers.
' For the aforesaid reasons the petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed.