' BASHIR AHMED MEMON (MEMBER).--- The petitioner named above has brought this petition under section 25(8)(g) of the IRA, 2008 claiming therein that he is employed with respondents Bank and is President of United Bank Limited Workmen Union Sindh and Balochistan, which is enjoying the status of collective bargaining agent (CBU). The CBA has raised industrial dispute on which about five meetings were held between the CBA and the management in which the petitioner participated as office-bearer of the said union. It is alleged by the petitioner that due to his participation in the union and pressing hard the demand of frozen salary of the retired workers the management of the respondents is annoyed with him and has been pressurizing and victimizing him to give up his trade union activities. The petitioner has alleged that all the respondents in connivance with each other have started committing different acts of unfair labour practice and are bent upon to remove the petitioner not from the union but from the employment also and intend to sign the settlement of their choice, hence this petition has been filed for taking cognizance against the respondents and restraining them from committing any act of unfair labour practice against the petitioner.
2. Along with main petition an application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC(P&F) Regulations, 1973 was filed by the petitioner for B interim relief and while admitting the petition interim prohibitory order was passed in favour of the petitioner.
3. The respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed their preliminary legal objections and reply denying all the allegations levelled by the petitioner and have asserted that the petition as framed by the petitioner is not maintainable. They have claimed that the petitioner has levelled bald and general allegations against the respondents. The averments of the petition are based on internal disputes between the office-bearers and no specific instance of unfair labour practice is alleged against respondents Nos.1 to 3. They have stated that no show cause or charge-sheet has been given to the petitioner therefore the apprehension of the petitioner is unfounded and false.
4. I have heard arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the petition, reply statement and other relevant documents produced by both the parties.
5. It is worth to mention here that at the time of filing of present petition there was some dispute between the office-bearers of the union and certain cases were filed by both the parties against each other. Admittedly the election of the union was held under the supervision of this Commission in which petitioner's group has returned succeeded. After holding of fresh elections of the union not a single incident regarding unfair labour practice has been reported, this gives me an inference that there is no apprehension of commission of any unfair labour practice against the petitioner.
6. Moreover general and bald allegations have been levelled against the respondents and no specific instance or unfair labour practice has been shown, therefore the petition is not maintainable.
7. In view of above facts and circumstances I am of the opinion that petitioner has failed to make out a case of unfair labour practice. Accordingly not the stay application but the main petition also stands dismissed.