' This is petition under Section 54(e) of the IRA, 2012 filed by the petitioner against the respondents along with application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC(P&F)" Regulations, 1973 for stay order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is employed with respondents Bank and is performing his duties honestly and dedication without any sort of complaint for the last 19 years and is member/office-bearer of Allied Bank Labour Union of Pakistan which is part of the Federation of the collective bargaining agent. Respondent No, 1 is a largest bank in the country having branches in all the provinces, whereas the Respondent No, 2 is responsible in respect of Human Resources and Industrial Relations of the establishment as such is implementing the policies of the bank, whereas the respondents No, 3 & 4 are responsible of the regional affairs and Respondent No, 5 is Enquiry Officer in the matter of petitioner. Petitioner being office-bearer of the union is involved in the trade union activities/affairs to resolve the disputes and problems of the workers at the regional level as well as the national level, therefore the respondents are not happy with him and always attempted to victimize the active persons under the garb of so called arbitrary fabricated allegations as of the petitioner. It is alleged that Respondent No, 4 informed the petitioner vide letter dated 05-12-2013 that two fake guarantees issued by Branch Office, SITE, Karachi in which his statement is to be recorded and he was advised to see Respondent No, 4 at 4- 00 p.m. On 06-12-2013 and submit his written statement so that they can forward it to concerned corner and the petitioner submitted his comments on 09.12.2013 accordingly and nothing was against the petitioner. Subsequently one of the messengers Anwar Shah Bukhari was also asked to submit his written comments upon the letter of explanation who has also submitted his reply which is available with the respondents. Thereafter the respondents failed to issue any charge-sheet within the stipulated period of thirty days and suddenly they served charge-sheet on 18-08-2014 and since the petitioner was sick and could not submit his reply within stipulated time, period, therefore, he made a request to the Regional Head to afford time of three days for submission of the reply but instead to affording time to the petitioner, the respondents maladroitly issued the notice of inquiry dated 25-08-2014 maladroitly did not allow the petitioner to submit his explanation to the alleged charge-sheet and issued inquiry notice on 15-09-2014 for conducting the inquiry on 24-09-2014. It is alleged by the petitioner all this has been done only due to his trade union activities to pressurize and harass him and no charge-sheet was served within the stipulated time and now when the respondents management is patronizing rival ground of the trade union and to satisfy them they have issued time barred charge-sheet which is an act of unfair labour practice, as such this petition has been filed wherein this Bench of Commission was pleased to grant interim stay order whereby the respondents were restrained from taking any adverse action towards employment of the petitioner on the basis of charge-sheet dated 13-08-2014.
3. Respondents were served and they filed comments taking legal objections that the petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that no trade union activities has been pleaded or pointed out and initiation of disciplinary proceeding and issuance of show-cause notice/charge sheet and such right of the employer cannot be taken away by mere bald allegations and on merits they have denied the allegations of unfair labour practice stating that Allied Bank Workers Federation of Pakistan is Collective Bargaining Agent in the respondent Bank and the petitioner is not an office- bearer of CBA and even if he claims that he is office-bearer of Allied Bank Labour Union but the fact is that he is not principal office-bearer as they are Chairman, President and General Secretary and even then he has not pointed out his trade union activities which could have given rise to apprehension of commission of any act of unfair labour practice. They have further stated that management of the Bank has cordial relations with the CBA Federation which is evident from the fact that current Memorandum of Settlement was executed on 12-12-2013, which is operative till-10- 09-2015. They have stated that two fake letters of Guarantee of Rs, 100 Million each with fake confirmation letter purportedly issued by SITE Branch were presented by Al-Barka Bank and Bank of Punjab on 8th and 11th of November, respectively for verification. The guarantees contained take signatures with IBS number without mentioning names of the signatories. The confirmation letters were again issued fake on letter heads of the Bank. Mail from the presenting Bank was received by BSM SITE Branch and PS to Regional Head, Nazimabad and the letters received from Al-Barka Bank and Bank of Punjab were snatched by the petitioner stating the pretext that letters had been sent by his friends from Lahore. He was directed by PS to Regional Head to bring back the Dak buthe did not comply with the instructions. PS also reported that when he refused to him the petitioner stated that "tum apne kaam say kam rakho. Is dak say tera koi kaam nahen hay" and forcibly snatched the envelops. Copy of statement submitted by the PS to Regional Head is enclosed and marked as Annexure "B". It was in consequence of such acts that statement was obtained from the petitioner and thereafter charge-sheet dated 13-08-2014 was issued to him, copy of report submitted by the Fraud Monitoring/Claims & Regulatory Reporting Division is enclosed and marked as Annexure "C", Enquiry has been completed against Anwar Shah Bukhari. However in view of the stay order passed by this Bench of Commission the matter has not been decided as the charge-sheets arise out of the same incident. However a query was put that SAM Group, Lahore should consider the possibility of registering a case with the FIA against beneficiaries as well as the culprits, SAM Report was received by the Chief Executive on or about 16-07-2014 and consequently thereafter charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner. The inquiry was conducted and after conducting the inquiry the Enquiry Officer submitted his report and he found the present petitioner guilty of misconduct.
Report and proceedings of inquiry are annexed as Annexure D&E respectively. Lastly they have prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of both the learned counsel on legal objections at some length. They reiterated the facts as stated in the petition and reply statements/legal objections with addition by counsel for petitioner that let evidence by recorded and thereafter legal objections alongwith main petition be disposed of.
5. I have considered the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings of the parties and material on record.
6. At the very outset this Bench of Commission don't agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner that first evidence is to be recorded and then to proceed with the matter. Firstly the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commission is dependent upon a prima facie case of unfair labour practice but the facts narrated in the petition do not constitute a case of unfair labour practice. The jurisdiction of the Commission is confined to the cases squarely falling within the scope of Section 31 of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 and nothing beyond. It implies that in cases of victimization for any reason, other than the trade union activities, this Commission will have no jurisdiction. In the present petition no trade union activities whatsoever have been mentioned to form the basis of the claim of unfair labour practice. The apprehended unfair labour practice has also not been specified except bald statement of apprehension, as such the petition does not fulfill the requirements of Section 54(e) of the IRA, 2012.
7. From the perusal of petition it reveals that there is nothing to indicate that the petitioner had been discriminated in respect of his employment and it is not denied that the discrimination, if any, must relate to the trade union activities of the person concerned in case he needs interference of this Commission in terms of Section 31 (c) of the IRA, 2012. Reliance is placed on 1988 PLC 923 and 1992 PLC 447.
8. Moreover it is right and prerogative of an employer to take action against a delinquent employee and by initiating and holding inquiry the respondents cannot be said to be committing acts of unfair labour practice and accordingly on merits also the petitioner has no case. Reliance in this respect is placed on 2004 TD (Labour) 158 and 2008 PLC 251.
In view of above facts and circumstance I am of the considered view that petitioner has failed to establish a case of unfair labour practice. Accordingly not only stay application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 is dismissed but the main petition also stands dismissed.