The instant petition has been filed by petitioner under Section 54 (e) of Industrial Relations Act, 2012 read with NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 to restrain the respondents from taking any step which comes within the ambit of unfair labour practice.
2. Facts in brief give rise that the petitioner is employed in the respondent's establishment i.e. Searle Company Ltd, since 2007 as Unskilled Worker in Distribution Department and also a member of Searle Employees Union which is CBA, and performing his duty with the entire satisfaction of his superiors without any complaint. That the respondent's establishment is trans-provincial having business in more than one province, hence comes within the jurisdiction of this Commission. That the petitioner and other workers of the union have been harassed and victimized on one pretext or the other in the hands of respondents, by abusing their powers, and now the petitioner is the target of the respondents. That the petitioner was sick and officials granted the leave but the Respondent No 2 promptly marked absent and leave without payment and issued charge sheet dated 11-07- 2016, and also issue of enquiry. That there is no misconduct on the part of the petitioner, the absence was due sickness and not deliberate or intentional, but the respondents malafidely due to his trade union activities leveling false pretext and apprehension that the respondents shall, in the garb of charge sheet and enquiry, take any adverse action by way of termination, dismissal, demoting or transfer the petitioner. Alongwith the petition the petitioner filed stay application for restraining the respondent from taking adverse action on the basis of the said charge sheet and enquiry,
2. Upon notice the learned counsel for respondents filed reply but raised certain legal objections that the petition of the petitioner is not maintainable for the reason that the respondents establishment there is only one union namely "The Searle Pakistan Employees Union" registered by Registrar Trade Union, Sindh which is CBA and the said union has no membership beyond the province of Sindh. That the Searle Company Ltd has entered into Toll Manufacturing Agreement, with M/s,
8. A, Pharmaceutical located at 32 Multan Road, Lahore for production of Pharmaceutical products, licensed by Drug Regulatory Authority and the plant is owned by M/s. S. A.
Pharmaceutical which is altogether separate entity, they have their own workmen and overall control and supervision over them. That the petitioner was issued Charge sheet vide letter dated 11- 07-2016 for the misconduct of casual attendance, habitual of intermittent absenteeism, unauthorized absence and leave Without approval of his manager without any cogent reason. The petitioner was asked to submit reply to charge sheet by 18-07-2016 but the petitioner through written request for time extension which was duly acknowledged and permit him to submit the same on 20.07-2016, however, the said reply was received in 21-07-2016. In reply the petitioner stated that he was suffering ram multiple diseases and unable to move properly but he had failed of produce any documentary evidence in his support, hence his reply as considered unsatisfactory and letter of enquiry dated 05-08-2016 ommunicated to the petitioner through Postal Service of Registered for appearance before enquiry officer on 08-08-2016 but the etitioner requested for extension of date and then new date of nquiry was fixed as 10-08-2016. That on 10-08-2016 when enquiry tarted at 10:00am attendance was recorded by the Enquiry Officer Respondent No. 2 but the petitioner refused to mark the ttendance and produced another request for further grant of time and hen he left the enquiry. That the petitioner was again advised to ppear at 02:OOPM on the same date and enquiry was stared and ttendance was recorded. That the petitioner admitted the allegations rained in charge sheet date 17-07-2016. On 11-08-2016 at 09:00 am he petitioner appeared but refused to mark his attendance and left he office and boycotted the enquiry and then the enquiry was ompleted ex-parte and the petitioner was found guilty of the charges eveled against him.
3. Arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner heard while learned counsel for respondents has filed written arguments. Both were considered and record perused.
4. The perusal of record would show that the petitioner was charge sheeted due to his absentia and in this respect the inquiry was conducted but he failed to make his appearance before the inquiry officer. Moreover, the petitioner claims that on the basis of trade union A activities the petitioner has been victimized, in this respect the petitioner also failed to produce any document or evidence to show his contention. Further, the record would also shows that no cause of action arise to the petitioner till date, as he is still in service of the respondents and it is the right of employer to conduct disciplinary action against his employee and one would not say that it comes within the ambit of unfair labour practice.
5. Thus, in view of the above it is candid clear that the petitioner has failed to defend his stay application, which is stand dismissed. With this order the main petition is also dismissed, having no merit in the case.