' GHULAM NABI DEESHAK (MEMBER).--- By this single order I would like to dispose of 3 applications under Regulation 32(2) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 filed by the above named petitioners as the facts of all the cases are identical in nature and dispute involved in all the three applications are same against the same respondents.
2. The brief facts of the case one that the petitioners are employees of respondents management and were appointed as Collection Officers performing manual as well as clerical duties with regard to recoveries of the dues preparation of balance sheet etc. The job of the Collection Officer is of a permanent nature. The petitioners alleged that the respondents Nos.1 to 3 in order to avoid legal obligations and to get ill gotten gain have created self-made contractor as respondent No,4 in order to refuse the implementation of labour law and in particular denies the relationship of employer and employees. The petitioners in capacity as Collection Officers are below grade of supervisor. The nature of duties are that of Tele Caller and prepare daily target sheet. By virtue of nature of job the petitioners are workmen and exercise their legal rights to join trade union of their own choice and became members of All Pakistan United Workers Union United Bank Limited. The petitioners alleged that one Taswer Habib who is Manager Card Collection Departments under the administration of respondent No,2 openly extended threats to all workers for termination of their services including petitioners for their union activities. The petitioners strongly apprehended victimization and injury to their employment at the hands of respondents management. The petitioners prayed that the respondents may be directed not to commit any act of unfair labour practice and not to cause injury to the employment of the petitioners by way of dismissal, discharge, removal, termination, posting, shifting, transfer etc.
3. The instant petitions were procured to this Bench by learned counsel Mr. Abdul Hafeez Amjad on 11-5-2009, 22-5-2009 and 25-5-2009 which were accompanied by stay applications and affidavits duly attested by oath commissioner. After preliminary hearing of the case the petitions were admitted and notices were issued to the respondents for filing parawise comments on main petition and status quo orders were granted. The respondents filed parawise comments with preliminary legal objections on main petitions and counter-affidavits on slay application.
4. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel at quite length. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Amjad, learned Advocate for the petitioners has contended that the petitioners are employed as Collection Officers performing manual as well as clerical duties with regard recoveries of the dues preparation of balance sheet etc. And the job of the Collection Officer is of a permanent nature which the status of Collection Officer is lesser than that of supervisor. He further contended that according to the length of service of both the petitioners and nature of job the petitioners have attained the status of permanent employees and are entitled to become and join trade union of their own choice. He also contended that about three months back few employees of the management have decided to form a trade union under the name and style of All Pakistan U.B.L.
' United Workers Union and the petitioners become members of the said union after that the respondents management have started extending threats to the petitioners causing injury to the employment by way of unfair labour practice and the petitioners strongly apprehend that the respondent management would cause injury to their employment by way of dismissal, discharge, removal, termination, posting, shifting, transfer etc. He prayed that stay order may be confirmed.
He referred the following case-law in support of his contentions:--- ' 1990 PLC 83, 1969 PLD 349, 1991 M LD 1608, 1996 PLD 610, 1980 SCM R 89, 2000 PLD 387, 1998 PLC 390, 2004 PLC 182
5. Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned Advocate for the respondents has argued that the petitioners are not the employee of United Bank Ltd. Are outsourced persons belong to independent service provider(s) namely Messrs Prime Human Resource Services and Messrs Human Resource Services who for the purpose of rendering of services employ their own employees, pay them salary and has exercise control and supervision over them. He contended that the service providers have provided the petitioners with the contract appointment letters/extentions which are filed as Annexures "R/1" and "R/2". He further contended that the petitioners have only been deployed to UBL in connection with rendering of services under the agreement and the petitioners undertook to keep UBL harmless and indemnified from all claims, demands, actions, proceedings, litigations etc. Copies of these documents are as Annexures "R/5" and "R/6". He further contended that in absence of employee-employer relationship, the present petition filed by the petitioners against the respondents is not maintainable. He also contended that the petitioners are "Tele Caller" and non-workman under the I.R.A., 2008 or Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 as they are not performing any manual or clerical nature of duties as their prime functions are Credit Card Collections with the responsibility to contact delinquent credit card customers telephonically and pursue them to make payment of outstanding dues, Customer Management and issue Resolution. He contended that this petition is not maintainable in law as none of the ingredients of unfair labour practice have been alleged nor claimed to have been violated by the answering respondents but with mala fide intentions the terminologies have been used to justify the petitions alleging unfair labour practice.
He further contended that the petitioners has made false statements and misconstrued the facts; they are even otherwise not entitled to the discretionary relief by this Honourable Commission and prayed for rejection of stay applications. He referred the following cases-law in support of his contention:--- ' 1985 SCM R 257; 2002 PLC 212, 2008 PLC 147; 2002 TDL 330; 1996 TDL 331; 2001 PLC 310; 1998 SCMR 53- 66 and 1999 PLC 447.
6. After hearing of the arguments, the matter was fixed for order on 16-6-2009 but on 15-6-2009 Mr. Abdul Hafeez Amjad, learned Advocate for the petitioners has filed application under Regulation 35 of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 along with documents for the purpose of just and proper conclusion of the matter in accordance with law. The notice was issued to the respondents for reply. The respondent has filed reply and denied that photocopies of document as Certificate of Participation issued by Mubashir Yasin and Arshad Hussain has not been issued by the UBL Training Centre, Islamabad. In fact no such training programme was organized by UBL Training Centre, Islamabad.
These are bogus and forged documents. The photocopies of the documents show some passwo rds issued to the petitioners is a standard email ID issuance proceedings and has no nexus with establishing of employment relationship. Deployment service providers of their employees require issuance of E Mail ID. Likewise Cards are only entrance cards issued for entering UBL's premises, for security purpose. Mr.' Mushtaq Hussain Bhatti, learned Advocate for the respondent No,4 has filed reply and contended that the instants petitions are not maintainable may be rejected.
7 . I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel of the parties and have gone through the petitions under section 25(8)(g) of I.R.A., 2002 along with applications under rule 32(2) of NIRC (Procedure and Functions) 1973 supporting affidavits filed by the petitioners, reply statements/legal objections and case-law referred by the learned counsel.
8. It is submitted that appointment letters/documents submitted by respondents along with written statement which show that the petitioners are contract employees outsourced persons of Messrs Prime Human Resource Services and Messrs Human Resource Services and not in respondents United Bank Limited but this fact was concealed by the petitioners. The petitioners have not mentioned any specific instance of their victimization on account of trade union activities by the respondents and only stated that due to becoming members of trade union, they were issued threats by the respondents for dismissal or termination from services on account of trade union activities. Mere apprehension will not make out a case of unfair labour practice.
9. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to make out prima facie case for grant of interim relief. Accordingly the applications under Regulation 32(2) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 are hereby dismissed and the interim prohibitory order passed by this Bench of Commission on 11-5-2009, 22-5-2009 and 25-5-2009 stand recalled. Put off to 31-8- 2009 for filing affidavit-in-evidence by the petitioners.