BASHIR ARMED MEMON (MEMBER).--- The present petition was brought by the petitioner management under section 25(8)(g) read with section 50 of the Industrial Relations (Revival and Amendment) Act, 2010 against five trade unions registered in the petitioner establishment.
2. Brief facts as stated in the petition are that the petitioner company is recently privatized company with major foreign investment and is engaged in the business of telecommunication in Pakistan and has its offices, branches, installations and workmen throughout the country.
Respondent No,1 was last CBA on the basis of judgment of Full Bench of NIRC announced on 26-10- 2005 in Appeals Nos.12(05)/2004 and 12(7)/2004, whereas the remaining respondents are registered trade unions as industry-wise with NIRC. It is stated that the respondent No,1 union received highest number of votes in the last referendum and result has been challenged in the honourable Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench in W.P. No,1684/2010 who by order dated 22-4- 2010 has restrained the issuance of CBA certificate as there is a dispute about the officers of this trade union. It is stated that respondent No,2 union received second number of votes in the referendum and it seeks fresh polls between two unions which polled the highest number of votes and in the writ Petition before honourable High Court it has been agitated that respondent No,1 did not hold one third of total number of workmen employed in PTCL and after the referendum the Authorized Officer/Member, NIRC did not allow the respondent No,1 to receive CBA certificate and the said order was reversed in appeal and the appellate order is now subject matter of constitutional petition before honourable Lahore High Court Rawalpindi Bench. It is stated that respondent No,3 though is not recognized body but on its platform it has launched their lawlessness campaign which includes illegal strike, preventing the employees from working, restraining officers from their duties, manhandling female staff, closing down call offices, installations, exchanges of PTCL and stopping the rectification of consumers complaints/faults in communication. It has been further stated that the employees of PTCL claiming to be officers of trade unions, whether CBA or not, have chequered history of taking law into their own hands and violating every statutory provisions, unleashing lawlessness and anarchy, as such the petitioner was constrained to approach this Bench of Commission and honourable High Courts which were pleased to pass the following orders:-
(a) Order dated 9-6-2008 passed by Mr. Justice (Retd.) Rashid Aziz Khan, Chairman NIRC directing that:- "Learned counsel has drawn my attention to the orders previously passed by this Commission regarding the same Company in Cases Nos.24(56)/06, 4A(45)/06, 4A(61)/06 and 4A(31)/03, wherein the union was stopped from taking the law into its own hand and resorting to strike.
' Learned Counsel's contention is that they be stopped from harassing the management and using filthy language against them. His contention is that the strike on the face of it is illegal, therefore be declared as such and they should be asked to move at least 200 yards away from the main gate of the Company so that no law and order situation arises.
' I have heard the learned Counsel and with his assistance gone through the file. Learned Counsel has also drawn my attention to the order passed by SEVP (HR&A) wherein the management had promised that if the workers stopped their strike their cases will be considered sympathetically, but it was not accepted.
' The contention that the union, which has gone on strike is not CBA nor has presented any charter of demands requires a' serious consideration in order to avoid commission of further illegality, I feel a notice to the respondents should be issued. Orders accordingly. The office-bearers of the respondent union shall appear on the next date of hearing. Petitioner Company is also directed to depute two officials of its company who can take decision to be present on the next date of hearing, so that the matter can be looked into in the presence of both the sides and some settlement should take place.
As already discussed the strike is by a union which is not CBA would prima facie be illegal.
Therefore, they are directed that till the decision of this application they shall not hold meetings or gathering within the radius of 200 yards of the Company specially the main gate. They are further directed not to commit any illegality or create law and order situation. A copy of this order shall also be sent to SSP Islamabad who shall see to it that no law and order situation is created and the order of this Commission is strictly complied with. Adjourned to 23-6-2008 for further proceedings."
(b) Order dated 15-7-2008, passed by Mr. Justice (Retd.) Rashid Aziz Khan, Chairman NIRC directing that: "In order to ensure that no law and order situation takes place SSP Islamabad is directed to see to it that those who are on strike, do not gather within 500 yards from the main gate of the Company.
Learned Counsel further states that the respondents with their supporters have blocked the main gate of the Company. It is directed that the main gate shall be got opened forthwith. If the main gate is not cleared at once then SSP Islamabad shall do the needful and submit a report to effect that.
' Adjourned to 29-7-2008 at Islamabad."
' Since the directions of the learned Chairman N1RC were ignored by the respondents Nos.4 to 6 and their accomplices, the petitioner approached Islamabad High Court in W.P. No,825/2008 in which on 17-7-2008, the court was pleased to direct as under: "To protect the property and business of every citizen of the country and to control the law and order situation is the legal duty of the respondents. If any law is violated by any body, it is the duty of the respondents to proceed in accordance with law."
' The writ petition is therefore, disposed of with the direction to the respondents to:
(a) Execute and implement the order of the Chairman NIRC dated 15-7-2008;
(b) Control the law and order situation and ensure the protection of the property and business of the petitioner; and
(c) Proceed in accordance with law, if any law is violated."
' The Lahore High Court, Lahore in its order dated 22-7-2008 has - directed: "The writ petition is disposed of with the direction that:
(i) the respondents to perform their duties imposed by law upon them. They should ensure that no violator of law may enter the premises and building owned by the PTCL;
(ii) remove the protestors and agitators from near the premises and installations of PTCL throughout Punjab particularly in Lahore;
(iii) execute and implement the orders of the Chairman NIRC dated 15-7-2008 and ensure the protection of the property and business of the petitioner;
(iv) evict the trespassers/demonstrators and take action against the violators and contraveners of law; ' The respondents are further directed to submit report to the Additional Registrar (Judicial) of this Court within 15 days of passing of the order."
' It has further been stated that in the year 2009 the functioning of PTCL was again disrupted by unlawful action. Orders were passed by this Commission, which were again ineffective, F.I.Rs, were registered and cases are pending before the Sessions Court, Islamabad. The petitioner has prayed for following relief:--- "(A) That this honourable Commission may be pleased to enforce right guaranteed and secured to the employer under law and hold that respondent Unions cannot be allowed to raise any demand financial or otherwise; till such time a CBA is not certified;
(B) That respondents and its Members by giving threat of going on strike and otherwise indulging in cessation of work or in slow down of work and using other coercive activities like in intimidation, coercion, pressure, threat, confinement or ouster from a place, dispossession, assault, physical injury, or by such other methods would be committing further acts of unfair labour practice which such acts of unfair labour practice;
(C) Prohibit the respondents and through them all the workers of the petitioner from resorting, to strike, go-slow, slogan raising, demonstration, cutting off electricity/power to offices, preventing employees from performing work and/or extending threats or pressure in any form or manner."
2-A. On admitting the petition interim prohibitory order was passed restraining the respondent No,1 union and through them all the employees of PTCL from resorting to strike/cessation of work, slogans raising, demonstration, using of abusive language, preventing the staff from performing their work, extending threats, pressure, displaying of banners, placards, poster, addressing press meetings, cutting off electricity/power of the offices, locking of offices and are directed to call off their strike forthwith and to conduct their affairs in a manner calculated to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practice.
3. The petitioner at the time of presenting the petition has also prayed for publication of interim order through prominent daily newspapers and it was reported by the Bailiff that one Zahid Imam claiming to be Senior Chairman has refused to receive the notice of respondent No,1, Muhammad Ishaque claiming to the General Secretary of respondent No,5 recevied the notice. Notice against respondent No,2 was returned unserved for want of complete address. Therefore service on respondents Nos.1 and 5 was, held good and notices were repeated against remaining respondents. On 9-9-2010 the matter was adjourned for service of notice upon remaining respondents and on subsequent date of hearing i.e, 16-9-2010 none appeared from the respondents and even respondents Nos.1 and 5 who were served were absent. Accordingly respondents Nos.1 and 5 were declared ex parte whereas notices against rest of respondents were repeated.
4. 'On 24-9-2010 none was present from the respondents side. Respondents Nos.2, 3 and 4 against whom notices were sent through courier but were called absent and on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner it was ordered that notice against these respondents be published in daily Newspaper at the cost of petitioner. Accordingly fresh notices were ordered to be issued in daily "Jang" at the cost of petitioner and the matter was adjourned to 8-10-2010. On 8-10-2010 Asad, Senior Vice-President and M. Aftab Alam, Information Secretary appeared submitted that they have not received any notice of this Commission but they have come to know about the case through newspaper and prayed for time for engaging a counsel and the matter was adjourned to ,22-10-2010. Again on 22-10-2010 both these persons appeared and requested for time and the matter was adjourned to 12-11-2010, 26-11-2010 and 14-12-2010 but none appeared from the respondents side. Accordingly all the respondents were declared ex parte and the petitioner was required to file ex parte proof.
5. Petitioner filed affidavit-in-evidence by way of ex parte proof, wherein petitioner has reiterated the entire facts of the case which are mentioned in the petition and has also appended photographs in support of their contention.
' Since no rebuttal has been received from the respondents, therefore this Bench of Commission is compelled to allow this petition as prayed. Accordingly the petition stands allowed as prayed.