CH. SHAUKAT NAWAZ GORAYA (MEMBER).--- The petitioner has brought this petition under section 25(8)(g) of I.R.A., 2008 against the respondents. It has been contended that petitioner is employed as Officer Grade-II in establishment of the respondent. Bank. He is a member and office bearer of U.B.L. Officer Association Market Zone Registered with RTU Faisalabad. He is General Secretary of the Association. Copies of certificate of registration and list of office bearer are attached with the petition. It is stated that an industrial dispute arose due to the resistance of the 'management of UBL against the participation of the officers of UBL in lawful trade union activities and becoming members of a trade union of the choice of the employees. The UBL Officers Association supported the officers/employees of different grades who were seeking membership of the union and for this purpose they filed petitions before this Commission and the honourable Lahore High Court, Lahore.
The respondents became hostile due to the lawful trade union activities of the petitioner and transferred him from Nishatabad to Salarwala Branch vide impugned relieving order dated 18-1- 2010. The transfer order dated 16-1-2010 as mentioned in the impugned relieving order dated 18-1- 2010 was never served upon him. The respondents did not serve the transfer order due to mala fide intention. No disciplinary proceedings of any kind were pending against the petitioner and he has neat and clean record of service. He further apprehends that more unfair labour practice is likely to be committed against him by the respondents. It is alleged that actions of the respondents are illegal, void, invalid, without lawful authority and amount to committing of unfair labour practice.
Along with the main petition an application for issuance of temporary injunction has been filed wherein it has been prayed that operation of the impugned order dated 18-1-2010 be suspended till the final disposal of the main petition.
2. The main petition and stay application were vehemently resisted by the respondents. They took various preliminary objections. Inter alia it was contended that the officers have a right to form their association. Their terms and conditions are separately governed along with those of Executives. The benefits settled and agreed through collective bargaining process with the trade union of workmen and no dispute can be settled with the association of the officers. The UBL Officers Association is not a trade union of workmen but the trade union of employers. It was also alleged that impugned order was passed due to exigency of service and no mischief or unfair labour practice was committed by the respondents.
3. I heard arguments of the learned counsel for the parties on the stay application and examined relevant record.
4. The perusal of record reveals that transfer of the petitioner was proposed vide order dated 6-1- 2010 by the competent authority and thereafter on the basis of said order the petitioner was relieved from his duties with the instructions to report at his new place of posting through impugned order dated 8-1-2010. The temporary injunction was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 14-1-2010 meaning thereby the transfer order had already been implemented through impugned order before the interim relief was granted to the petitioner. It is settled proposition of law that this Commission has no power to grant status quo ante, therefore, same cannot be allowed. In this regard reliance is placed in 1994 PLC 476. It was argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that UBL Employees and Workmen union is an industry-wise trade union which is duly registered with NIRC pursuant to the orders of honourable Chairman NIRC declaring two CBUs in the establishment of UBL i.e, one for Sindh and Balochistan and other for Punjab, Islamabad and N.-W.F.P. The terms of the constitution of the union specifically provide that the membership of the said union is for clerical and non-clerical employees of the Bank who are workmen under the law. It was further argued that at the time of registration of the union the respondent Bank raised an objection that certain members of the said union were not workmen and they have been incorporated in the list of members. At the time of hearing of application for the registration, the General Secretary and Senior Vice-President who had applied for the registration gave a statement in a categorical terms that none of the workers who were members of this union were functioning in the category as officers/employers therefore, the factam that officers cannot be members of the trade union of workers in UBL has been decided by this Commission, therefore, it is a settled, past and closed transaction. It will not be out of place to mention here that under section 42 of IRA, 2008 industrial dispute can only be raised between the employer and the CBA. There is no provision under the IRA, 2008 for rising of an industrial dispute by an officers association which is admittedly not a CBA.
5. The respondents have attached copy of the duty list of the staff as on 1-1-2010 as Annexure "R/1".
According to this document the duties of Mr. Nasir Qayyum present petitioner have been mentioned at Serial No,2, he was responsible for handling of Operation Related matters of the Branch, Mobilization of fresh deposit as per given target, Opening/supervision of fresh accounts, Checking/supervision of Daily vouchers, checking Signing of Daily/Weekly/monthly/Quarterly/yearly statements, Custodian of ATM & WIZ Cards, reparation/submission of Audit/CCAG compliance, Custodian of Security Stationary and any other work assigned from time to time. He is also holding power of attorney of the Bank and he is performing managerial nature of duties. In view of the matter prima facie it looks that he does not fall within the category of workman. The petitioner has not levelled any specific allegation of alleged unfair labour practice committed against him. Vague and general allegations do not constitute the element of unfair labour practice. In this regard reliance is placed in 2005 PLC 327 and 2003 PLC page 344. It is also well settled proposition of law that it is right of the employer to use the services of his employee at best suited places and this right cannot be snatched away from him. In this regard reliance is placed in 1996 PLC page 100.
6. In the light of what has been stated above, it is held that petitioner has failed to make out a prima facie case in his favour. The stay application is without any substance, hence dismissed accordingly. The temporary injunction which was granted in favour of the petitioner is hereby vacated.