' SYED AKHTAR NAQI NAQVI (SENIOR MEMBER).--- The petitioner, which is a Banking Company existing under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 under the name and style of United Bank Limited, has filed this petition raising complaints against the respondent who is an ex-employee of the said Bank and retired vide Office Order, dated 11-3-1999. The petitioner contended that a Petition bearing No,4A(89) of 2000 along with 24(155) of 2000 was filed before this Commission against 16 persons including the respondent and the learned Member NIRC vide order, dated 31-7-2003 directed the respondent not to pose himself as member and office-bearer of the federation or trade union of the petitioner-Bank and not to issue derogatory or defamatory statements or notices/demands as office-bearer of the federation and not to resort to other coercive activities for, pressurizing the petitioner-Bank for acceptance of demands. The petitioner-Bank further contended that the respondent also filed a Petition No,4A(27) of 2003 before this Commission which held the respondent barred in terms of section 27(b) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 vide order, dated 5-6-2006. It has now been contended that despite prohibitory orders passed by this Commission, the respondent has been committing various acts of defiance and disobedience of the orders of this Commission as a result of which a Contempt Petition bearing No,7(23) of 2003 was filed. The said contempt petition was subsequently disposed of on 14-6-2005 on the basis of a statement made by the respondent that he was no more President of the UBL Employees Union, Sargodha or office-bearer of the UBL Employees Federation of Pakistan and he undertook not to pose himself as an office-bearer of the said federation or any other trade union of the petitioner-Bank and would not defy the orders of this Commission. He also undertook not to issue any derogatory statement against the management and not to commit any act which may violate the order, dated 31-7-2000 aforesaid. The petitioner-Bank has now contended that despite such undertaking, the respondent had participated in a general body meeting of UBL Employees Federation at Faisalabad on 24-9-2005 in which various threats were extended to the Bank that if their demands were not accepted they will resort to mass agitation and shall come out on the street for the acceptance of their demands and the said general body meeting were also addressed by the respondent and his photographs was published in the newspaper Daily Express and Daily Awaz. The petitioner-Bank requests that security proceedings be initiated against the respondent and he be directed to submit security bonds to the satisfaction of this Commission of his good conduct and behaviour hence this petition.
2. The respondent contested' the application thereby admitting the pendency of the earlier Petition No,4A(89) of 2000-L but contended that at the time of that petition, he was an approved office- bearer of UBL Employees Federation which was for two years and he is no more the office-bearer of the said federation. He admitted that he is a retired employee of the Bank and denied the allegation that he is posing himself as such. Instead he is an advisor/consultant of the United Bank Employees Federation for which there is no restraint in law. He denied having participated in any such meetings in which threats were extended to the Bank authorities. On the contrary he was simply present as a legal advisor/consultant of the federation. In addition to that, the respondent raised an objection with regard to jurisdiction of this commission as he is no more a workman and therefore, relationship of employer and workman does not exist on the basis of which jurisdiction can be assumed.
3. In view of their controversial pleas both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. The petitioner-Bank produced M. Jaffer AVP as P.W.1 who submitted his affidavit in evidence and produced in his evidence copy of Petition No,4A(27) of 2003/L Exh.P.2, copy of letter Exh.P.3, copy of order and proceedings recorded in Petition No,4A(89) of 2000 Exh.P.4 copy of Petition No,7(23) of 2003 Exh.P.5, copy of order passed in Case No,7(23) of 2000-K Exh.P.6, press clipping from Daily Express Exh.P.7, from Daily Awaz' Exh.P.8 and press clipping Exhs.P.9, 10, 11, 12 and Exh.P.13. He was cross-examined at length. With that the petitioner's evidence concluded. The respondent himself appeared as R.W.1 and stated that presently he is neither a member nor an office-bearer of any trade of the petitioner-Bank and he is simply a consultant/advisor UBL Employees Federation of Pakistan as also the union affiliated with the federation. He denied having got published any pamphlet containing insulting or derogatory material against the management or having submitted any demand notice to the 'petitioner-Bank or pressurizing its officers for its acceptance. With regard to the meeting held on 24-9-2005, the respondent stated that a dinner (Bara Khana) was arranged on behalf of UBL Employees in which many political personalities were present and which was arranged in District Council Hall, Faisalabad while there were many former employees of the bank but participated in that dinner. He further stated that on 15-10-2005 an Iftaar Dinner was arranged on behalf of UBL Employees Union Sargodha which was attended by many others and which was held for the help of earthquake victims. He denied the allegations contained in the petition as incorrect. The respondent produced letters Exhs.R.2 and R.3 and closed his evidence. At the end of trial I heard arguments addressed at the Bar and perused record.
4. The grievance of the petitioner-Bank, is that the respondent was restrained vide order, dated 31- 7-2003 by this Commission passed in Grievance Petition No,4A(59) of 2000/L from posing himself as member and office-bearer of federation or trade union of the petitioner-Bank and from issuing derogatory or defamatory statements or issue notices/ demands as office-bearer of the federation and from resorting to other coercive activities aimed at pressurizing the bank for acceptance of their demands. In the meantime the respondent also filed a Petition bearing No,4A(27) of 2003/L before this Commission which, vide. Its order dated 5-6-2003, held the respondent barred in terms of section 27(b) of the Banking Ordinance, 1962 since the respondent was not in the service of Bank. In order to establish its allegations the petitioner-Bank produced M.
Jafer Sial as P.W.1 who supported the contentions raised in the petition and produced copy of the order dated 31-7-2000 passed in Petition No,4A(89) of 2000 as Exh.P.4 and copy of order, dated-5- 6-2003 passed in the respondent's Grievance Petition No,4A(27) of 2003/L as Exh.P.14 in the earlier order the learned Member NIRC at Islamabad who directed the respondent along, with others not to pose as member and office-bearer of the federation or trade union of the petitioner-Bank not to address or issue derogatory or defamatory statements as mentioned above. In the respondent's. Petition No,4A(27) of 2003/L it was held by the learned Member vide Exh.P.14 that the respondent No,1 had no legal status hence he could not espouse the cause of the remaining petitioners of that petition and the respondent being a retired employee of the petitioner-Bank was incompetent in terms of section 27(b) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 for representing the remaining petitioners/workers. This is a legal situation, it is not denied by the respondent. He admitted correct in his statement as R.W.1 that he came to know about the order, dated 31-7-2000 Exh.P.4 a few days prior to 4-3-2005. He also admitted correct about his filing Petition No,4A(27) of 2003/L and that he filed this petition in his capacity as Provincial Secretary UBL Employees Federation of Pakistan. He clarified that at the time of institution of that petition he did not know whether restraint order was operative against him or not. He admitted correct that by means of order Exh.P.14 the learned Member NIRC, Lahore had restrained him from posing as office-bearer of the federation under the aforesaid section 27(b). It should be noted that order Exh.P.14 was passed on 5-6-2003. The respondent escaped his liability by saying that he did not remember if he had attorned a power of attorney in favour of a counsel who had appeared on. Behalf of the respondents and explained that the Advocate might be in possession of a power of attorney having been executed by him earlier. The Court proceeding appended as Exh.P.4 indicates that Mr. Shahani Advocate had filed his power of attorney on behalf of all the respondents of the said petition including the respondent.
Naturally the respondent was supposed to know the proceedings when he had attorned Vakalatnama in favour of his counsel. The proceedings are dated 27-8-2001. In spite of that the respondent filed a Grievance Petition No,4A(27) of 2003/L. This is one aspect of the matter that the respondent had been violating the orders of this Commission.
5. With regard to the specific allegation of his addressing two sessions and his participating nd addressing the general body meeting of the UBL Employees Federation at Faisalabad on 24-9- 2005, the respondent did not deny the participation of that meeting as well. On the one hand the petitioner has produced M. Jafer Sial AVP to establish the allegations who submitted his affidavit in evidence Exh.P.1 and produced documents consisting of press clippings Exh.P.7 from Daily Express and Exh.P.8 from Daily Awaz and press clippings Exh.P.9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. The witness admitted on cross-examination-that he was not present in the meeting which was reported by means of the press clippings Exh.P.7 and Exh.P.8. However, he categorically stated that he could identify the picture of the respondent in Exh.P.8 encircled at Exh.P.8/1 and he asserted that it was a picture of the respondent. The respondent did not deny having attended these meetings but as consultant.
The learned counsel for the petitioner put the news items published in the Daily Express Exh.P.7 to the respondent specifically but he denied the same as incorrect and asserted that he had written to the newspaper officials denying the said news items as incorrect and denying that he had addressed that meeting but his denial was not published in the newspapers. However, he could not produce a copy of that letter. The respondent stated categorically that he attended those meetings as he was 'known to their trade unions and he had himself remained a trade unionist for about 25 years. At a latter stage, with regard to his picture in the newspapers concerned he clarified that Sargodha being a small city and the respondent having remained a trade unionist and a popular trade union leader for about 25/30 years, the officials of those newspapers which are local papers, might have got the same published on account of his respect in their hearts. It is very strange that the said newspapers are publishing news items along with a picture of the respondent due to his respect in the hearts of the journalists on account of his former trade union activities and on the other hand, they do not publish his denial about delivering these speeches and corrigendum in this regard. The respondent's admission that he had addressed a letter to the concerned newspaper denying having delivered any speech itself indicates that he had gone through that news items along with his name and picture and if this is so he should have realized that there was a restraint order against him by competent Courts and if any news items had been published he should have denied its correctness and should have served the newspaper owners with a show-cause notice but he did not bother to do the same as he did not bother in denying the picture at Exhs.P.7 and 8 and a judicial notice can be taken that these are genuine pictures of the respondent as he had been appearing before the undersigned in this vary petition and had been trying to deliver speeches with regard to his innocence. This is very strange that the respondent asserted that the picture at Exh.P.8 was that of Malik M. Hussain, an old trade union leader. If this is so, it was very easy for him to have produced Malik M. Hussain and compared his face with the said photographs in which he failed hence the presumption would go against him, since silence in this regard establishes his involvement in these speeches and meetings. The speeches are clear threats to the petitioner-establishment with regard to the demands of UBL Employees. The respondent himself admitted correct that he was simply an advisor/consultant of the UBL Employees Federation of Pakistan and that his duty was mainly to advise them about their working.
If it is admitted as correct for the sake of arguments advices are not given in open meetings and in the form of threat.
6. For the foregoing reasons it is established that the respondent has violated the orders of this Commission by posing himself as union leader and threatening the petitioner-establishment with dire consequences if the demands of the employees of the petitioner-Bank were not fulfilled and he has therefore, clearly violated his mandates and his commitment. I, therefore, acting under Regulation 32(2)(e) of the NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 direct the respondent to submit a surety bond in the sum of Rs,50,000 (Rupees fifty thousand only) regarding his good conduct and restraint from the alleged acts of posing himself as a union leader, addressing meetings in this position and issuing threats to the petitioner-establishment for the cause of the workers in his position as a union leader of the UBL workers. The surety shall be to the satisfaction of the Deputy Registrar of this Bench. There would however, be no embargo upon him to act as an advisor to any labour federation in his private capacity. With this, the instant petition is disposed of.