' FALAK SHER FAROOQA (MEMBER).--- The brief facts leading to above stated petitions are that petitioners was employed as Senior Associate Engineer in SNGPL. He performed manual and clericl duties, therefore he claimed himself to be workmen. He has also stated that he is being victimized and discriminated on account of his law full trade union activities which he is caring on from platform of his union namely. Employees Union SNGPL Pir Muhammad Group. The respondent asked him to quit his lawful trade union activities but he refused, therefore respondents issued threats of dire consequences to him. He has further stated that Gas Meter of one Sadiq was disconnected vide disconnection advice dated 14.1.2013 on the charge that the consumer had unauthorizedly given extension of gas to one house therefore he sent the disconnection advice.
Later on, illegally the No,1 of house mentioned on the disconnection advice was changed to 5 number of houses by overwriting. The consume Sadiq filed civil suit against company on the plea that he provided extension to one house only rather than five houses. Petitioner appeared before court to support disconnection notice. He did not acknowledge disconnection notice which was not signed by him but was signed by some M.Aslam. However he admitted his signature on disconnection advice dated 14.1.2013 which was manipulated by making 01 as 05. He did not make false statement before the court. He challenged his transfer order and charge sheet issued by the respondents by filing separate grievance petition. The above said petitions have been contested by the respondents by filing written statement wherein preliminary objections have been taken regarding non service of grievance notice, non maintainability of grievance petition against charge sheet and transfer order. It is also stated that petitioner is not a workman and move over the petitioner is neither an active member of any trade union nor he is representative of any such trade union. It is further stated that petitioner is not involved in trade union activities nor the management is interested or favouring any specific trade union, therefore the allegation alleged in the grievance petitions are false.
2. It is further stated that transfer order of any employee or charge sheet against an employee on the basis of misconduct, is the prerogative of the employer, therefore the grievance petitions are not maintainable.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that due to trade union activities, petitioner was victimized by transferring him from Okara to D.G.Khan, that the petitioner filed the grievance petition and the transfer order was suspended; that the respondents did not allow the petitioner to join nor had give any salary to the petitioner, therefore petitioner filed the petition in this regard before this Commission' for the implementation of the order passed by the Commission; that as the transfer order was suspended by this commission, therefore petitioner did not join at Dera Ghazi Khan and the respondents treated as absentee and served charge sheet against him; that as the charge sheet and transfer order have been passed with mala fide intention, therefore grievance petitions are maintainable before this forum.
4. Conversely learned counsel for the respondents has contested the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. Arguments heard record perused.
6. As per version of the petitioner he was appointed as Senior Associate Engineer in SNGPL.
Petitioner has not placed on record any document in order to show that he was ever representative of any trade union. Regarding trade union activities, petitioner has not placed on record to show that he is an active member of any trade union. Only general and vague allegations have been leveled regarding his trade union activities and extending of threats by the respondents to quite trade union activities. No specific instance has been mentioned in the grievance petitions.
Regarding making of statement before civil court, no doubt this fact is mentioned in the charge sheet yet the petitioner joined the inquiry proceedings and contested the same before the inquiry officer. Respondents have served the petitioner the charge sheet wherein the allegations regarding misconduct, absent from duties etc have been leveled and petitioner have been given proper opportunity to contest the same by appearing before the inquiry and cross-examine the witnesses 'examined before inquiry officer. The stay application against the transfer of petitioner has already been dismissed vide order dated 20.8.2015 therefore after the said order the grievance petition No,4A(225)/2013-L has become infructuous and the same is not proceed able any further. It is the prerogative of the employer to post his employees as per his own choice. Regarding charge sheet served against the petitioner, it is settled law that no restrained order can be passed until and unless it is established by the workman that the same has been served against him due to mala fide being involved in trade union activities in order to restrain him from lawful trade union activities. As stated earlier there is nothing on record to show that petitioner is involved in lawful trade union activities being representative of any trade union. It has also been held by superior courts that to conduct disciplinary proceedings for acts of misconduct against the delinquent workers including office bearers of union is a right of employer which could not be curbed or taken away merely on the general and vague allegations of unfair labour practice. It is also held by the superior courts that employer has legal inherent right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against employees on charge of misconduct and to take such proceedings to their logical end, in absence of any specific instance of unfair labour practice. Reliance in this regard is placed on 2003 PLC 149.
7. In view of above discussion I find no merit in the above said three petitions (1) 4A(225)/2013-L, (2)
4A(201)/2014-L (3) 4A(197)/ 2014-L the same are hereby dismissed.