' BASHIR AHMED MEMON (MEMBER).--- The present petition has been filed by the petitioner union under section 25(8)(g) read with sections 17(e)(0, 26(3)(b) and 50 of the IRA, 2008 claiming that it is collective bargaining agent in the establishment of respondents determined through secret ballot held on 20-8-2009 and in the capacity of CBA the petitioner union submitted charter of demands and bilateral negotiations have been commenced by the respondents. It is stated that prior to determination of CBA the respondent establishment created so and integrated Business Centre (I.B.C.) in the Defence area by re-designating the different categories of workmen with the meagre improvement in their monthly salary but with the same nature of job with an intention to decrease strength of workers and such policy of the management was challenged by the C.B.A. By filing a Petition bearing No,4A(160) of 2009-K before this Bench of Commission and status quo order dated 25-11-2009 was granted which was subsequently confirmed vide order, dated 4-2- 2010 whereby this Bench of Commission directed the respondent management to continue to establish the I.B.Cs. And other operational activities and allowed them to deploy/post the workers according to their requirement with the condition that there shall not be any change in terms and conditions of employment which affect the interest of the workers as such the very apprehension of ousting of the workers from the definition/membership have been temporarily stopped by the respondents and such case is still pending before this Bench of Commission. It is asserted that after passing of earlier order in case No,4A(160)/2009-K the respondent management was not happy and has not accepted the same in letter and spirit and thereafter have twisted another so- called policy under which all such staff/workers who were transferred in I.B.Cs. Centre and were observing their duties with honesty having skilled/experience of their respective job and without any sort of complaint now the respondents have proposed to withdraw those members from such Centre and they now were intending to transfer the staff members to another self-created Business Office Region (BOR), where in fact there is no work or job or any operational activities available to be performed by the workers but in fact the respondents wanted to defuse the order passed by this Bench of Commission which act of the respondents is not only illegal, mala fide but is an act of unfair labour practice and is also contemptuous in nature and the petitioner has succeeded to obtain copy of such proposed letter which has not been served/issued to all the individuals who are shop stewards/active members of the petitioner union, photo copy of said proposed Memo. Dated 10-3-2010 has been produced as Annexure "D". It is stated in the petition that the issuance of transfer letter of the workers from I.B.Cs. To so called BOR-III and IV is only with intention to keep the workers in surplus with mala fide intention and all such workers mentioned in the list at Serial Nos.5 to 31 have been proposed to be put at B.O.R.-III and IV without mentioning any place of their posting/department which itself is evident from Memo. Dated 10-3-2010 (Annexure "D") and it has been done with bad intention, mala fide and is a sort of serious act of unfair labour practice and the workers have not yet been relieved from their respective posts, as such the petitioner has prayed for restraint order.
2. On admission of the petition Interim stay order dated 16-3-2010 was granted by this Bench of Commission and notices were issued to the respondents for their comments and counter affidavit.
3. The respondents after service of notice filed their written comments with legal objections as well as counter affidavit on stay application stating therein that negotiations on the charter of demands were in progress at the time of filing of present petition and subsequently settlement was executed between the petitioner and the respondents on 3-4-2010, and the same settlement has been produced as Annexure "R/1" and in terms of Clause-6 of the settlement it has been agreed that KESC Labour Union (petitioner) shall withdraw all cases against KESC and its Management. The parties undertook to settle all issues with each other cordially through negotiations to maintain industrial peace and harmony and the recourse to Law Courts shall only be made when an issue is not resolved at Management Committee level within reasonable time and the present petition has been filed before signing of above settlement and therefore the same is liable to be withdrawn in compliance to the spirit of settlement. It has been stated that the petitioner has also been reminded in this regard vide letter dated 14-4-2010, copy of such letter has been annexed as Annexure "R/2". The maintainability of the petition has been challenged on the ground that the same has been filed under the garb of alleged unfair labour practice and actually the respondents have not committed any act of unfair labour practice. It is claimed by the respondents that in the earlier order passed in Case No,4A(160)/2009-K this Bench of Commission has allowed the management to continue to establish I.B.Cs. And other operational activities and the transfer is one of the operational activity in connection with the said I.B.Cs. And the petitioner has wilfully and deliberately misinterpreted the order passed by this Bench of Commission which tantamount to contempt and liable to be taken cognizance. It is also stated that the petition is further not maintainable in law as the transfer etc. Is contracted and legal right of the employer and such managerial right of the employer cannot , be challenged under the garb of unfair labour practice.
The respondents have further challenged the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the union cannot espouse the cause of individual workers in terms of section 25(8)(g) read with sections 17(e)(f) and 26(3)(b) and 50 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2008.
4. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I myself have gone through the material placed on record.
5. Admittedly the transfer is right and prerogative of employer. The respondent's management wanted to introduce certain schemes in better interest of KESC. How it is presumed by the petitioner that while transferring the members/workers of the union the management will keep them in surplus pool and thereafter will remove them from employment. The KESC management is already running in losses and such schemes viz. I.B.C. & B.O.R. Have been introduced by the management in order to bring improvement in billing, customer service and complaint management with the eventual goal of enhancing performance standards and satisfying the needs of all its stakeholders and customers with a defined geographic area. The respondent management has categorically stated that maintenance and Commercial functions within IBC have been combined under single General Manager and 4 main departments of IBC namely Customer care, Customer Accounts, Revenue Protection and Recovery and Construction Maintenance have been restructured to provide KESC customers a one window facility.
6. It is also an admitted position that while signing the settlement the petitioner union has agreed to withdraw all the pending cases filed against KESC management vide clause-6 of the settlement which reads as under:-- "It is also agreed that the KESC Labour Union shall withdraw all cases against KESC and its Management. The Parties undertake to settle all issues with each other cordially through negotiations to maintain industrial peace and harmony. The recourse to Law Courts shall only be made when an issue does not get resolved at Management Committee level within reasonable time."
' Since while signing the settlement the petitioner has agreed to withdraw all the pending cases and the present petition was also filed before signing the settlement, therefore morally as well as legally the petitioner union has to withdraw the present petition and it has no right to proceed further with the present petition.
7. Moreover the petitioner union has brought this petition for 27 members/workers who are said to be transferred by the respondent by way of unfair labour practice. If for the sake of arguments it is believed that the said 27 persons are being transferred by the management due to their trace union activities then what prevented them to approach this Bench of Commission by filing their separate petitions for redressal of their grievance but this petition filed by the petitioner union will not be maintainable on the ground that this is an individual cause and the petitioner union cannot espouse the cause of an individual worker.
In view of above facts and circumstances I am of the considered opinion that this petition has no merits which stands dismissed along with stay application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F)
Regulations, 1973.