' BASHIR AHMED MEMON (MEMBER).--- The present petition was brought by the petitioner under section 25(8)(g) of the IRA, 2008 stating in the petition that he was employed with the respondent management where trade union activities are disliked by the management and though there is a trade union in the name of "Employees union Engro Food Limited Rohri" but all the office-bearers have been kept aside by the respondents and this way there are actually no union activities in the field. The petitioner has claimed that in order to reactivate the union activities he arranged a meeting of factory workers on 15-3-2010 at his residence where it was resolved to reactivate the union activities. The petitioner further claims that as soon as the information regarding holding of meeting went to the knowledge of respondents accordingly on 19-3-2010 respondent No,3 called the petitioner in his office and inquired about holding of meeting but the petitioner disowned the holding of any meeting. On this respondent No,3 in a very clear terms told the petitioner that the management has reliable information about holding of the meeting and directed the petitioner to resign from the job and in case of failure to submit his resignation the petitioner was threatened of dire consequences including removal from service. The petitioner finding no other alternate approached this Bench of Commission praying therein that since he was trying to reactivate the trade union activities, as such he is being targeted therefore the said acts of the respondents are acts of unfair labour practice on their part.
2. Along with main petition application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC(P&F) Regulations, 1973 was filed by the petitioner for interim stay order and while admitting the main petition interim stay order was granted in favour of the petitioner.
3. After service of the notice the respondents filed their comments and counter affidavit wherein they have denied the allegation of commission of acts of unfair labour, practice on their part and they in a very clear terms asserted that the trade union activities are in operation and very recently there has been change of office-bearers which was approved by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Hyderabad Region, (Annexure "R/1"). It is asserted that the petitioner was served with show-cause notice that while getting the job he has produced a forged' Degree of B.A. And the same degree which was got verified from Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur has been certified to be a bogus.
On this the management has issued him show-cause notice (Annexure "R/5") asking him that his act of submitting fake and bogus degree was an act of forgery, fraud and subversive of discipline and the same was an act of misconduct and he was thus required to explain his position and on getting his reply the management has ordered for holding of an inquiry and in order to frustrate the domestic inquiry the petitioner has approached this Bench of Commission on false assertions and succeeded to get interim stay order. The prayer is made by the respondents for dismissal of not only stay application but also main petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of Rana Mahmood Ali Khan, labour representative appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. It was argued by Rana Mahmood Ali Khan, labour representative appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner was recruited after he qualified the required test held for the purpose of his recruitment, therefore, bogus degree could not come in the way of the petitioner's service.
Rana Mahmood Ali Khan, labour representative has reiterated that since the petitioner had tried to reactivate the trade union activities, it is why the petitioner is being targeted.
6. Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the contention of labour representative of the petitioner and has argued that show- cause notice was issued against the petitioner on the ground that while getting the job he had produced bogus/fake degree which fact on the verification from SALU proved to be true.
7. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the documents produced by the both the parties.
8. The petitioner has not been able to establish that he has been office-bearer of the trade union.
Even he has not been able to prove that he was member of trade union. The show-cause notice and inquiry letter speaks about submission of fake and bogus degree, which does not relate to the trade union activities of the petitioner.
9. Now-a-days the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan has taken a serious view on production of bogus degree during the election process by the Parliamentarians and so many Parliamentarians have lost their Assembly seats on the ground of bogus degree. In this situation it is clear that the petitioner while getting his job furnished misstatement and it reflects his dishonesty.
' In view of the above facts and circumstances I am of the considered opinion that the present petition was filed by the petitioner only in order to frustrate the disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated against him. The petitioner has failed to 'establish a case of unfair labour practice, as such not only the stay application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC(P&F) Regulations, 1973 but the main petition also stands dismissed.
Petition and . revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.