' BASHIR AHMED MEMON (MEMBER).--- This is application under Regulation 32(2)(c) NIRC(P&F)
Regulations, 1973, which has been filed by the petitioners along with petition which they have filed under section 25(8)(g) of the IRA, 2008.
2. The petitioners in their petition have claimed that they are employed with respondents Nos.1 and 2 since so many years but they are not being treated as permanent employees due to so-called contract system in their organization. Neither the workers are given appointment letters nor any other document. Simply the security passes are being issued to the employees/petitioners.
However the petitioners have produced security passes Annexures "A/3" to "A/6" and contractor attendance cards as Annexures "A/7" to "A/10" and have claimed that even no name of the factory or the organization is mentioned in the said security passes etc. The petitioners have claimed that they are being threatened for removal from service and are asked to leave the affiliation of union since they are active members of CBA Union.
3. While admitting the petition interim stay order dated 3-2-2010 was passed by this Bench of Commission in favour of the petitioners.
4. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 have denied the contentions of petitioners and they have clearly asserted that petitioners are employees of respondent No,3 who is Canteen Contractor in the respondents establishment and respondents Nos.1 and 2 have nothing to do with the services of petitioners and they have prayed for dismissal of the application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC(P&F) Regulations, 1973 as well as main petition having been filed without any cause of action.
5. Respondent No,3 has denied the allegations of the petitioners and have asserted that the petitioners are employees of respondent No,3 who is the Canteen Contractor and is in the business of catering. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 have entered into an agreement with respondent. No,3 to run the canteen for the use of employees at Daharki and providing tea, meals, cold drinks and refreshment etc. Copy of the agreement has been produced as Annexure "A". The respondent No,3 has admitted that petitioners are its employees and not of respondents Nos.1 and 2. It is asserted that the petitioners themselves have annexed the documents which also show the name of contractor as such the respondents Nos.1 and 2 have no nexus with the petitioners. It is prayed that not only the stay application but main petition is not maintainable which may be dismissed.
6 . I have heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and have gone through the entire pleadings and the documents produced by the petitioners as well as by the respondents.
7. The petitioners have produced attendance cards issued by contractor namely "Haji A. Rasheed Sons" (respondent No,3) and on the very same card it is also mentioned "E.C.P.L. DAHARKI", which indicates Engro Chemical Pakistan Limited because the petitioners are working in the factory therefore they have been issued security passes, Annexures "A/3" to "A/6". By producing these documents the petitioners cannot claim that they are actually employees of respondents Nos.1 and 2 and since they are not employees of respondents Nos.1 and 2 therefore the question of any threats by respondents Nos.1 and 2 of removal from employment does not arise..
8. Even otherwise there are general and bald allegations. No specific instance of unfair labour practice has been shown either in the petition or in affidavit filed in support of application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC(P&F) Regulations, 1973 so as to establish a case of unfair labour practice on the part of respondents and in the absence of proof of specific supporting circumstance that the management was annoyed with the petitioners general allegation cannot be considered to be sufficient evidence of unfair labour practice.
' In view of above facts and circumstances I am of the view that the petitioners have failed to make out a case of unfair labour practice and it shall be futile exercise to proceed further with the petition. Accordingly the application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 as well as the main petition under section 25(8)(g) of the I.R.A., 2008 are dismissed.