' BASHIR ARMED MEMON (MEMBER).--- The present petition was filed by the petitioners under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 in which it is claimed by petitioner No,1 that it is collective bargaining agent in the establishment of respondent No,1 and petitioners Nos.2 and 3 are office-bearers of the union. Earlier the petitioner union was formed by the workers employed by Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Limited (PICIC) and subsequently the said PICIC was amalgamated with NIB Bank with permission of Federal Government and State Bank of Pakistan. It is stated that the petititioners Nos.2 and 3 were employed with the then PICIC and on amalgamation of PICIC with NIB Bank they were offered fresh job by respondent No,1 and they have been considered junior and separate from the original employees of respondent No,1 and they have been issued different appointment letters and have been placed under lower cadre in respect of terms and conditions of their employment as compared to the original cadre of employees of NIB Bank. They have stated that they are serving with the respondents with full zeal, honesty and without any complaint but they are not liked by the respondent management and they are being compelled to tender their resignations and this way the respondent management is committing acts of unfair labour practice towards employment of the petitioners.
2. On admission interim stay order was granted. Notice was served upon the respondents and they have filed their preliminary legal objections and written comments denying the character of petitioner No,1 union as no CBA has been issued by the NIRC for the said union and Annexure "A/1" is an expired certificate of CBA issued by the Provincial Registrar of Trade Unions, Government of Sindh in the year 1989 and this way the petition filed by non CBA in the present form distorting and misguiding this Bench of Commission for obtaining stay order is liable to be dismissed. It has been stated that petition under section 25(8)(g) of Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act, 2010 of Sindh is to be dealt with in a manner laid down under section 50 in which it is only the CBA Which can file the petition and not any trade union. It is also objected by the respondents stating that petitioner No,3 is an officer and officers in the Banking Company are not workmen and cannot be member of trade union of workmen. It is also stated that the petition is not maintainable in law as termination, retrenchment, dismissal, transfers etc. Are all contracted and legal rights of the employer, likewise the claims of seniority etc., which forms an integral part of the allegations and pleas of the petitioners are also not justifiable in the present proceedings. It has been stated that after amalgamation of the employees of the PICIC the employees joined on fresh terms and conditions and there was no continuation of employment and all the employees signed new terms and severed their relationship from the previous employer and their dues were settled and their employment in NIB Bank started afresh as ordered in the Scheme of Arrangement (Amalgamation) of the State Bank of Pakistan and at the time of joining and acceptance of new terms and conditions the petitioners raised no objection and they voluntarily accepted the terms and conditions. The discrimination is vehemently denied. The respondents have denied to have committed any act of unfair labour practice nor does they intend to commit any act of unfair labour practice in future and the pleadings and claims made by the petitioners do not fall within the ambit of unfair labour practice.
3. I have heard arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and material placed on record.
4. Admittedly the petitioner No,1 is not registered with RITU, NIRC and is not CBA therefore the petition in the present form filed by the non CBA is not maintainable. Even otherwise the union cannot espouse the cause of individual workers. From the pleadings it appears that only bald and vague allegations without any substance have been alleged and no specific instance of unfair labour practice has been quoted as such the petition does not fall within the ambit of unfair labour practice.
' In view of above facts and circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the petitioners have failed to establish a case of unfair labour practice. Accordingly not only the stay application but main petition stands dismissed.