The instant petition is under Section 54(e) & (g) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 with the prayer to declare the notice dated 16.02.2018 as acts and steps of unfair labour practice of the respondents, to prevent the occurrence of acts of unfair labour practice by the respondents by changing the place of markin g attendance and to restrain the respondents permanently from harassin g and victimizing the workers or termination/transfer/demotion of the members and office bearers of the petitioner union or changing the terms and condition of service without due course of time.
2. Brief facts of the Petition are that the Petitioner is a registered trade union for the workers employed and engaged in the Respondents No. 1 establishment and also CBA. The Respon dent Establishment is a large industrial establishment engaged in the business of manufacturing medicines since 1955 all over the country having status of trans-provincial organization. The petitioner union use to sign agreements/settlement with the management being CBA as result of bilateral negotiations on charter of demands and the last agreement was effective from 01-07-2015 to 30-06-2017. It is stated that petitioner union submitted charter of demands under Section 35 of the IRA, 2012 on 01-07-2017, whereon bilateral negotiations are going on but the respondents instead of resolving the charter of demands started harassing and pressuriz ing the workers to leave the employment by accepting voluntary separation or to resign from employment in case of refusal, which act of the respondents tantamount to unfair labour practice. A letter was sent to the respondents in this regard but they did not pay any heed, which indicate that the respondents are adamant to discourage the office-bearers and members of the union. Petitioner union filed petition under Section 54(e) of the IRA, 2012 on 09-01-2018, whereon interim stay order was passed by this Bench of Commission. It is 'further stated that the respondents have issued letter dated 16-02-2018 whereby they have changed the existing terms and conditions of employment to which petitioner union Objected showing resentment of the workers but no response has been given. It is submitted that respondents are committing unfair labour practice by different means mentioned above, hence this petition to restrain the respondents from committing acts of unfair labour practice.
3. The Respondents contest the petition by filing written reply , wherein they have raised objection regarding maintainability of the petition on the ground that this Commission is vested with power to restrain the act likely to be committed and not to suspend or pass order by way of status-quo ante, as the action already been done. The petition under Section 54(e) is not maintainable, as it can only be filed under Section 33 (9) by a CBA or the employer for enforcement of pre-determined rights guaranteed or secured to the CBA under the law, the present petition has been filed for supporting the cause of individual members on this ground also the Petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for respondent further argued that the Superior Courts held that the CBA can only apply for enforcement of its own rights secured to it under any law, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in a case 1992- SCMR-36 has held that if there are any pre-determined rights of individual workers then such individual workers alone are to file case through individual grievance and the CBA could not file the case on behalf of such individual workers. The learned Counsel also referred reported judgment 2014-PLC-56 has held that the petition filed by the union was not maintainable. On facts, the allegation of unfair labour practice has been denied and the respondents have requested that the legal objections raised by them may be heard and decided first.
4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner union is CBA in the establishment of Respondent No. 1 and being CBA has signed agreement/settlement with the management from time to time and last settlement was effective from 01-07-2015 to 30-06-2017. He further contended that petitioner union submitted charter of demands under Section 35 of the IRA, 2012 on 01-07-2017, whereon bilateral negotiations are going on but the respondents instead of resolving the charter of demands have started harassing and pressurizing the workers to leave the employment by accepting voluntary separation scheme or to resign from employment. Such letter was sent to the respondents by the petitioner in this regard but they did not pay any heed. It was further submitted that earlier to this a petition was also filed under Section 54(e) of the IRA, 2012 on 09.01.2018, whereon interim stay order was passed by this Bench of Commission and now the respondents have again started unfair labour practice and has issued letter dated 16-02-2018 whereby they have changed the existing terms and conditions of employment, to which, petitioner union objected showing resentment of the workers but no response has been given, which amounts to unfair labour practice, therefore, the respondents be restrained from committing such acts of unfair labour practice.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for respondents has argued that none of the action of the respondent falls within the ambit of unfair labour practice and the instant Petition on this ground is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. He further submitted that the petition is based on bald and wage allegations and none of the ingredient of Section 31 of the IRA, 2012 is attracted, therefore, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. Learned Counsel for Respo ndent also argued that it is right of employer to effect re-organization as per requirement of market competitiveness and to ensure the viability of operations to make it economical. The allegations regarding adoption of unlawful mythology or extending threats to force the workers for acceptance of separation is absolutely baseless having no foundation. Learned Counsel further contended that no permanent or unionized workers were threatened to resign as the workers had the acceptation of availing ex-gratia which otherwise is not obligatory under the law to be paid by the employer . As the issue of time attendance machine, its location is purely an administrative issue, which by no stretch of imagination, can be alleged as unfair labour practice as the machine was initially installed inside the entrance and the workers used to punch their cards and instead of going to the production floor were found malingering and wasting time at the changing rooms and around the factory premises. Learned Counsel lastly contended that the respondent neith er committed any unfair Labour practice nor intend to do so in future and he prayed that the petition in hand having, no merits may be dismissed.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of both the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the relevant record and case law .
7. The petitioner has prayed in the petition that notice dated 16.02.2018 may be declared as an act of unfair labour practice and the respondents may permanently be restrained from harassing and victimizing the workers/members and from commission of unfair labour practice. The learned counsel for respondents during the course of arguments contended that no unionized staff has been threatened to resign and that the respondents have neither committed unfair labour practice nor they intend to do so in future. Only bald and general allegations have been leveled and no specific instance of unfair labour practice has been mentioned. The letter dated 16-02-2018 issued by the respondent management is an administrative step, for which the employer has right and prerogative in order to run its business smoothly . The petitioner has failed to establish a case of unfair labour practice on the part of respondents. Even otherwise, the impugned order has already been issued which cannot be suspended or set aside in these proceedings as the Commission has jurisdiction to prohibit the acts of unfair labour practice which are likely to be committed and not the acts, which have already been committed or completed. The changing of location of bio-metric machine by the respondent management does not constitute unfair labour practice therefore, the petition in hand is not maintainable.
In the light of above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has failed to establish a case of unfair labour practice, hence the petition is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed alongwith stay application with no order as to costs. File be consigned to record room after completion of codal formalities.