' BASHIR AHMED MEMON (MEMBER).--- The petitioner named above has brought the present petition under section 25(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Act, 2008 and along with it has filed application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 for interim stay order.
2. The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner is elected Finance Secretary of CBA Union and he was issued a show-cause notice dated 28-4-2009, which was immediately replied by him on the next day i.e, 29-4-2009 but the management keeping silent for about a year has issued letter of inquiry dated 4-3-2010 and the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of inquiry letter and it has been alleged that said has been issued against him due to his trade union activities, which are not liked by the respondent-management.
3. On presentation of petition interim prohibitory order was passed by this Bench of Commission restraining the respondents from taking any adverse action towards employment of the petitioner.
4. After service of notice the respondents filed their comments with preliminary legal objections and counter-affidavit denying the acts of unfair labour practice on their part. It has been stated that show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner regarding misconduct as he has disobeyed the orders of the management dated 3-3-2009 wherein the entire staff was advised not to use Pan/Gutka and Naswa r etc. Within the factory area because the factory was a Food processing factory. The allegation of unfair labour practice on the part of respondents have been vehemently denied and it has been stated that Muhammad Shahab Anwar General Manager of the company met with a serious accident on 11- 5-2009 and he remained hospitalized up to 21-2- 2010 it is why there has been delay in initiating the domestic inquiry.
5. I have heard arguments of Labour Representative appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents and I have gone through the material placed on record by both the parties.
6. The circular dated 3-3-2009 has been filed by the respondent-management as Annexure "R/1" and it also bears the signature of petitioner to have gone through the circular on 6-3-2009, whereby the staff was prohibited from using-Pan/Gutka, Naswar and Chhalia etc. And the allegation against the petitioner is that he not only himself was using the Gutka/Pan but he also was supplying the same to one Waqar, therefore the petitioner was asked that he violated the rules and regulations of the company, which amounts to misconduct under section 15(3)(a)(b) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968.
7. The Labour Representative has relied upon case reported as 1990 PLC 772 wherein it was observed by Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal that domestic inquiry must be conducted promptly as delay is not only violative of spirit of S.0.15(4), but also a source of harassment to employee.
Another judgment of FST passed in f unreported Appeal No,84(K)(C.S.) of 2008 has been relied upon wherein there is also observation that delay in the report of inquiry conducted was in total violation of the provisions as provided under section 5(3) of the Ordinance, 2000. But in the case in hand the petitioner was served with charge-sheet immediately after incident was happened. No doubt there has been delay in conducting the inquiry and that too has been well-explained by the respondents that it was due to accident of General Manager who remained hospitalized for about seven months.
8. The charges against the petitioner are that he has used the Gutka within the factory area where food material is being processed. The petitioner, who is an office-bearer of CBA, has c disobeyed the order of the respondent-management and service of showcause notice on the charge would not amount to any act of unfair labour practice. Had the management any disliking for the trade union, they must have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the principal office-bearers of the CBA Union i.e, President, Vice-President and General Secretary.
9. Moreover only wild and bald allegations have been alleged by the petitioner and no specific instance of unfair labour practice has been quoted as such the petition is not maintainable.
10. In the end I would like to advise the management that since they had delayed the initiating of domestic inquiry as such the courtesy requires that on such a delayed inquiry major penalty shall not be imposed and the management should avoid from imposing major penalty against the petitioner.
11. In view of the above facts and circumstances and observations, not only the stay application but the main petition stands disposed of.