BASHIR AHMED MEMON (MEMBER).--- The petitioner named above had brought the present petition under section 25(8)(g) of the IRA, 2008 and alongwith main petition the petitioner has filed stay application therein that she is employed with respondent and has spotless service career without any complaint by the superiors. There is Bayer Pharma Employees Union and the petitioner is member of the said union but the said union was crushing lawful benefits of the workers as such during the month of June/July, 2009 decided to form another trade union and such union was formed in the name of Bayer Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited Workers Union and the said union has been registered on 5-8-2009 vide registration certificate Annexure "A/1". The petitioner claims that after the registration of new union the management has annoyed with office-bearers and active members of the union and petitioner is one of them. It has been asserted that on 10-08-2009 the union belonging to the petitioner applied under section 24 of the IRA, 2008 for holding the referendum for determination of collective bargaining agent and the copy of letter dated 10-8- 2009, produced as Annexure "A/2" and the Registrar of Trade Unions issued letter dated 29-8-2010, Annexure "A/3", but the management is raising objection and is not allowing the referendum. It has been alleged that when the Registrar of Trade Unions, Sindh insisted for holding of referendum for determination of CBA the management filed case bearing No,4A(163)/2009-K. Before this Bench of Commission and obtained stay order against the referendum proceedings. It has been started that the respondent management has started pressurizing and victimizing the active members of the trade union to resign from the membership of Workers Union and to join the Employees Union and on number of occasion such proposal was also given to the petitioner with threat of dire consequences and when the petitioner refused to join the Employees Union she has been served with fictitious show-cause notice dated 28-9-2009 for remaining absent from duty and was asked to reply within two days and subsequently an other charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner followed by inquiry letter dated 12-11-2009 although the B petitioner has denied the allegation through her reply dated 19-11-2009 and inquiry has been commenced and the petitioner is not satisfied with the inquiry proceedings, as such apprehending an action adverse to her employment the petitioner has filed the present petition.
2. While admitting the petition interim stay order was granted in favour of the petitioner and the notice was issued to the respondents for their comments and counter affidavit.
3. The respondents filed their comments and counter-affidavit raising certain legal objections regarding maintainability of the petition. The respondents have denied the allegations of unfair labour practice and claimed that issuance of charge-sheet and holding of domestic inquiry is legal and contracted right of the employer which cannot be twisted/ misrepresented as unfair labour practice. They have stated that initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner has nothing to do with any trade union activities of the petitioner and no cause of unfair labour practice has been made out to attract the jurisdiction of this Bench of Commission.
4. Along with comments the respondents have produced detail of previous charge-sheets and warning letters which were served upon the petitioner during the years 2003, 2004, 2007 and 2008.
In order to prove that the petitioner was in habit of indiscipline and the respondent management on different occasions issued warning letters to her on 11-11-2004, 14-9-2007, 7-1-2006, 5-3-2008, 25-5-2008 18-6-2008, and 21-8-2008 etc. This way the respondents have asserted, that the petitioner has filed the present petition only in order to frustrate the disciplinary proceedings as such the petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed:
5. I have heard arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire material placed on.
6. Mr. M. Rafique Malik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the, petitioner has argued that petitioner is being victimized because she has been instrumental in formation of second trade union in the respondent establishment, as such the respondents have decided to oust the petitioner from employment which amounts an act of unfair labour practice.
7. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioner has been served with charge-sheet dated 5-11-2009 that while the petitioner along with co-workers on their way to their houses on the vehicle provided by the company there were exchange of harsh words between the petitioner and Mrs. Farzana and on the complaint of workers namely Bushra Aziz, Sajida, Farzana Begum, Kanwal Afshan and Sabiha Inaam. The petitioner was served with charge-sheet and petitioner's reply was not satisfactory as such domestic inquiry has been ordered and during the domestic inquiry the witnesses including, driver of the vehicle has been examined and the management has no any ill will against the petitioner due to formation of another trade union and holding of inquiry is right and prerogative of the employer which cannot be termed as an act of unfair labour practice. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the respondents has placed his reliance on 1990 PLC 662, 1987 PLC 547, 1987 PLC 675, PLD 1976 Lah.
158 and 1984 PLC 115.
8. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel and have gone through the pleadings and material placed on record and have also gone through the case-law relied by the learned counsel for the respondents.
9. In a decided case reported in 1990 PLC 662 it was observed by their Lordships that:-- "Jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission was attracted only when a case of unfair labour practice was made out. Just because proceedings of domestic enquiry were alleged to have been conducted illegally and in violation of basic tenets procedure of conducting inquiries would not ipso facto bring the case within the ambit of unfair labour practice nor it would lead to the conclusion of malice or mala fide. National Industrial Relations Commission has thus no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint."
' I am fortified by the above referred judgment passed by Full Bench of this Commission.
9-A. It is worth to mention here that the respondents have produced copies of earlier show-cause notices and warning letters which show that the respondents have no ill will against the petitioner and if the respondents would have any grudge against the petitioner they could have easily removed her from the employment on the previous occasions.' But this has not been done by the respondents, which shows their conduct that they are not against the employees.
10. In the present case the petitioner was served with charge-sheet on the allegation of misconduct, inquiry was conducted against her and according to inquiry report she was found guilty of the charge. Now it is for the management to take any disciplinary action against her and this Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere in the disciplinary proceedings as such this petition is not maintainable.
' In view of above facts and circumstances I am of the considered view that petitioner has failed to establish a case of unfair labour practice. Accordingly not only the stay application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC(P&F) Regulations, 1973 but the main petition stands dismissed.