' This petition has been filed by Abdul Ghafur and Muhammad Bakhsh, workers employed in the United Sugar Mills Rahim Yar Khan against the General Manager of the said Mills under section 22- A(8Xh) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The petitioners were served with charge-sheets on 18th June, 1983 for having beaten one Muhammad Ali, Electrical Engineer of the said Mills on 16th June, 1983 at about 0815 hours when he was coming to the Mills from Marching the Railway Station.
Domestic enquiries were conducted into the charges. The Inquiry Officer held the petitioners guilty.
A second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioners, on 30th July, 1983. Through this notice, the petitioners were directed to show cause within three days as to why they should not be dismissed from service in terms of the enquiry report. The present petition was, therefore, moved on 11th August, 1983 with a prayer that the respondent be directed not to dismiss the petitioners pending decision of the present case. It has been alleged in the petition that the respondent is determined to oust the two petitioners from service on account of their Trade Union activities. It is further alleged that workers formed a new Union in the name of `Al-SADAQAT UNION' which was registered on 30th June, 1980. It became Collective Bargaining Agent on 1st February, 1983. The Mills Management was ill-disposed towards the creation of this new Union. The Management removed one Abdul Hamid Siraji, President of the Union from service. They also removed Ubedullah, Propaganda Secretary of the said Union in 1982. In support of their version the petitioners examined themselves as witnesses. They also produced Noor Muhammad, Malook and Amanat Ali as their witnesses.
2. Respondent denied the allegations in their written statement. It was submitted that the allegations that the Mills Management was ill-disposed towards the creation of 'Al-Sadaqat Union' is incorrect. It was further submitted that the Management after the declaration of the said Union as C.B.A. Entered into a settlement. It was further submitted that Abdul Hamid Siraji, President of the said Union is an outsider. He was dismissed from service after holding a fair and impartial enquiry by the Mills Management. The said Abdul Hamid Siraji filed a grievance petition before the Punjab Labour Court No, 8, Bahawalpur, which was dismissed. He filed an appeal against the orders of the said Punjab Labour Court, which was also dismissed on 26th November, 1981. It was also submitted that Ubedullah was also not ousted in the year, 1982. He was a seasonal worker and before starting the crushing season of 1982 all the legal formalities were observed to recall the seasonal workers but said Ubedullah, who is the alleged Propaganda Secretary did not turn up for resuming his duties during the said season. It was submitted that the name of Ubedullah was missing from the list of the office-bearers supplied by the Union to the Mills Management. The respondents also submitted that the petitioners were charge-sheeted for misconduct. An independent and impartial enquiry was conducted by the Inquiry Officer. The petitioners participated in the enquiry proceedings. Full opportunity was afforded to them to defend themselves in the enquiry proceedings. The respondents further submitted that the two petitioners have beaten and injured Muhammad Ali, Electrical Engineer in a woeful manner and the said officer remained under the treatment of Factory Doctor who later on recommended the case to E.N.T. Specialist, District Headquarters Hospital, Rahimyarkhan. The said Officer's sense of hearing was also affected. The report of the Factory Dr. And the E.N.T. Specialist along- with Police report have been annexed with the written statement. Photo copies of the letters, dated 18th June, 1983 addressed to the Joint Director Labour, Bahawalpur Region and the Deputy Commissioner, Rahimyar Khan were also annexed with the written statement. The respondent in support of his version examined Muhammad Anwar, Resident Medical Officer of the United Sugar Mills, Muhammad Ali, who was allegedly beaten by the two petitioners. Ali Ahmad, who conducted the domestic enquiry, Ihsanul Haq and Qazi Saifuddin.
3. Before discussing the evidence brought on record, I would like to mention that the Commission can grant relief only if the petitioners succeed in proving that a case for the prevention of unfair labour practice for contravening the provisions of section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 have been made out against the respondent. In the present case, I do not think that the petitioners have made out a case of unfair labour practice. The only allegation of unfair labour practice is that the respondent is not happy with the 'Al-Sadaqat Union' and, therefore, he wants to remove the petitioners from employment. In the petition they have cited the cases of Abdul Hamid Siraji and Ubedullah, Propaganda Secretary of 'Al-Sadaqat Union'. It is alleged that these two persons were victimised. As regards Abdul Hamid Siraji the respondent has alleged that he was dismissed from service on account of misconduct and he filed a case before the Punjab Labour Court which was also dismissed. The learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, also dismissed the appeal filed by Abdul Hamid Siraji against the decision of the learned Labour Court. The petitioner did not adduce any evidence to show that Abdul Hamid Siraji was dismissed from service on account of his Trade Union activities. Abdul Hamid Siraji was present in Court on all the hearings of the case and it seems very strange that the petitioners did not produce him as their witness to prove this allegation. Similarly the petitioners have failed to prove that the Management ousted Ubedullah, from service for his trade Union activities. It is admitted by the petitioners that a settlement was signed between the Union and the Management which shows that the Management was not against the said Union. There is no other allegation in the petition. Even the fact that the petitioners Abdul Ghafur and Muhammad Bakhsh were office-bearers of the Union has also not been mentioned in the petition. The petitioner Abdul Ghafur in the statement has alleged that he has influence among the workers, and therefore, the Management wants to victimise him. He further stated that he was called by the District General Manager Mr. Qazi who advised him not to take part in the Union. These facts do not find mention in the petition. Even if it is correct that the petitioner Abdul Ghafur has influence among the workers, he has failed to show that it has caused annoyance to the Management. It is nowhere alleged that the two petitioners were taking active part in the trade Union activities.
4. The petitioner Muhammad Bakhsh stated that he is Vice-President of the Union. He stated that the Management wants to oust him from service because he has influence among the Raistis'. The facts are not mentioned in the petition.
5. It is very obvious that the present proceedings have been initiated in order to prevent the Management from exercising their right of taking disciplinary action against the petitioners. The incident took place on 16th June, 19R3. They tiled the present proceedings on 11th August, 1983 which was the last date of the reply of the second show-cause notice as alleged in the petition. They did not initiate any preventive proceedings during this period and voluntarily participated in the enquiry proceedings. The petitioners also did not move any application against the Enquiry Officer for holding an impartial enquiry. On the other hand, there is overwhelming evidence to show that the departmental proceedings were initiated on the report of Muhammad Ali, Electrical Engineer and not with a view to victimise the two petitioners. Muhammad All who was beaten by the two petitioners lodged an F. I. R. With the police on 16th June, 1983. 17th June was Friday and the Management of United Sugar Mills issued charge-sheets to the petitioners on 18th June, 1983. The same day the Management also made complaints to the Joint Director Labour and the Deputy Commissioner. I, therefore, hold that the petitioners have miserably failed to prove that they are being ousted from service for their trade Union activities.
6. The petitioners have tried to prove that no case has been made out against them in the domestic enquiry. I do not want to give any finding on this issue merely because it might prejudice the petitioners as they have not yet been dismissed from service.
7. In view of what has been stated above, I dismiss the petition.