' BASHIR AHMED MEMON (MEMBER).- By this single order I would, like to dispose of the above mentioned two petitions filed by the petitioners mentioned above under section 25(8)(g) of the I.R.A., 2008 along with stay application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC(P&F) Regulations, 1973,
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners named above have filed the present petitions under section 25(8)(g) of the IRA, 2008 claiming therein that they are employed with the respondents and are performing their duties at the entire satisfaction of their superiors. The respondents are not fair to the workers and are depriving the legal rights etc. Applicable to the workers as such the workers in order to get their legal rights formed a trade union in the name and style "Royal Airport Services Workers Union" on 21-7-2009 and the notice dated 21-7-2009 as required under section 10 of the IRA, 2008 was sent to the respondents. The petitioners have alleged that since they have formed a trade union and such information was communicated to the respondents, as such they apprehend that their services will be terminated by the respondents, therefore they have filed the present petitions to restrain the respondents from committing such acts of unfair labour practice:
3. While admitting the petitions interim stay order was granted by this Bench of Commission in favour of petitioners towards their employment.
4. Respondents filed their comments with preliminary objections and reply to stay applications. The respondents have vehemently denied the allegations of unfair labour practice and formation of the trade union on 21-7-2009 is also denied, They have asserted that the notice under section 10 of the IRA, 2008 was received by them on 30-7-2009 as the same was deliberately posted by the petitioners on 28-7-2009 so also the application for registration of the union was also presented to the Registrar on 28-7-2009 which is evident from the application itself. They have asserted that even the union has been formed only for Karachi Branch Office of the respondents establishment which is against the provisions of section 2(ix) of the IRA, 2008 because the respondents establishment is spread over in three provinces having its office at five places of the country. They had taken the plea that since the union was formed at local level as such it was illegally formed because the NIRC has jurisdiction to register such type of union in the establishment of respondents. The respondents have stated that it will be pertinent to notice that application for registration of the union and date of filing of the present petition is 28-7-2009 whereas the union was formed by the petitioners on 21-7-2009 which clearly indicates that respondents informed about formation of the union on 30-7-2009 and prior to that they had no knowledge about formation of the trade union therefore how could it be possible for the respondents to commit any act of unfair labour practice against the petitioners. They have stated that the plea taken by the petitioners is totally false and manipulated as such the petitions are not maintainable. The respondents have denied all the allegations of unfair labour practice made by the petitioners.
5. On 13-3-2009 the respondents filed certain documents i.e, certification of registration, certificate of collective bargaining agent and so also notice under section 42(1) of I.R.A., 2008 regarding charter of demands and notice of strike under section 42(3) of the I.R.A.,. 2008 issued by General Secretary of the union.
6. I have heard arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings and documents produced by the parties.
7. The present petitions were filed on apprehension that during the pendency of registration of the trade union the respondents will remove the petitioners from employment. Except this only bald and general allegations have been made without any substance and no specific instance of unfair labour practice has been quoted. The petitioners have failed to prove apprehension that they are being removed or terminated from service due to formation of the trade union.
8. It is worth to mention here that the petitioners formed the trade union on 21-7-2009, sent its information to the respondents as required under section 10 of the I.R.A., 2008 on 28-7-2009 (received by the respondents on 30-7-2009) and filed the present petition on 28-7-2009. All this shows that at the time of filing of the petitions the respondents had no knowledge about formation of the trade union therefore the question of commission of acts of unfair labour practice on the part of respondents does not arise.
9. Moreover it is an admitted position that respondents have five offices in three Provinces of the country, therefore, the local Registrar has no jurisdiction to register such union but the NIRC is only competent to register such union.
' In view of the above facts and circumstances I am of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to make out a case of unfair labour practice. Even balance of convenience is not in their favour and they will not suffer any irreparable loss and injury if the stay order is vacated as the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated at the bar that respondents have no any intention to take any action against the respondents except in due course of law.
Accordingly not only the stay applications but both the petitions are dismissed. 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.