' Financial Institutions has enhanced the House Building Limit (of Loan) from Rs,1,00,000 to Rs,1,75,000 for scales Nos. 1, 2, 3 and Rs,1,25,000 to Rs, 2,00,000 for Scales Nos. 4 to 7 respectively.
Consequently the Provincial Chief of the Bank sent a fax message to all the General Managers and Circle Executives of the Punjab stating that Ministry of Finance and the Banking Council had taken a note of loans allowed unauthorisedly to the staff members. Any violation of established norms for disbursement facility shall be dealt with seriously. This was done on 22-8-1990. However on 23-8- 1990 SVP/ Circle Executive Multan reported to the petitioners that the officer-bearers of the UBL Employees Union Multan accompanied by other employees gheraoed Circle Officer and threatened him and other Executives of dire consequences and obtained their signatures on vouchers for unauthorised availment of house building loan limits in respect of clerical and non- clerical staff through intimidation, pressure, coercion and threat. They obtained the payment from the concerned branches despite immediate telephonic instructions, to the contrary. About Rs,50,000 were advanced by each of the branches, about which details were being collected. In Vehari Zone of Bahawalpur Circle the office-bearers of the UBL Workers Union Vehari coerced the Manager and Officers to do the same but the Manager did not succumb to the coercion.
Consequently they placed the vouchers on record and got the money released themselves out of the vault without signatures of Manager or any other officer. The payment was obtained in other branches after signatures were obtained on the vouchers from the junior officers. The office- bearers of the UBL Employees, Jhang Zone, similarly, obtained money for the clerical and non- clerical staff under coercion pressure and threat. Same was the case with the U.B.L. Employees Labour Union, Faisalabad City where Mr. Khalid Usmani VP did not succumb to the pressure despite being insulted and intimidated.
2. It is stated about the Chairman and the Secretary-General of the Federation as well as its Provincial President and Provincial Secretary (of Punjab) that they have been visiting the offices of Provincial Chief as well as the General Manager Admn. And Coordination and other General Managers concerned to bring upon the pressure, threat, intimidation and coercion on them. It is prayed that the Commission take appropriate legal measures for refraining them from committing unfair labour practice and as a matter of ad interim relief prohibit them from behaving in disorderly manner in the office of Provincial Chief and Zonal Offices and Branches of the Bank and also to refrain them from intimidating pressure, coercion, threat to force the Executives and officers of the Bank to comply with the legal demand for payment on account of alleged enhancement of house building advance limit sanctioned for the bank employees. The Commission is requested also to refrain them from fulfilling their threat and debiting the amount in the respective branches under their signatures or otherwise etc.
3. I have heard the arguments of both sides.
4. The respondent No, 3, however, made an application before me, stating, on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 60, that in a meeting held on 24-9-1990 the President and other officers of the Bank had agreed to withdraw the case against respondents Nos. 1 to 60 and therefore there was no need to record their written statement. The petitioners state that they have no such instructions. I therefore proceed to decide this petition.
5. As for respondents Nos. 6, 12, 15, 17, 20, 23, 29, 38, 44, 47, 53 and 56, there is no case against them because these are the names of the respective unions operating in various establishments of the U.B.L. In Punjab alongwith the cities where their registered offices are located. Neither their full addresses have been given nor the designations of the officers of these unions through whom they are sued are given. Being corporate bodies it was necessary that when a case is filed against a corporate body it should have been sued through its Secretary or other Principal Officer as required under Order 29, rule 2(a) of C.P.C. Further even the complete addresses have not been given. This fact was pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner present in the Court who stated that even if the cases are dropped against them his petition would not be materially affected thereby. I consequently dismiss this petition as against the above-stated respondents.
6. Out of the other 48, respondents Nos. 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 41, 42, 43, 57 and 59 have already committed the unfair labour practice. Consequently, there is no question of granting any stay order or refraining them from committing any unfair labour practice. The arguments that some unfair labour practice they have already committed and, other unfair labour practices they may commit is an example of blowing hot and cold in the same breath and consequently no prohibitory order could be issued as held in 1984 PLC 397. Further, since the unfair labour practice has been committed, no stay order can be issued as held in PLD 1976 Lah. 611 and 1984 PLC 1343. As for the first four respondents, namely, the Chairman and the Secretary-General of the Federation and the President and Provincial Secretary of the Lahore Zonal Office of the Union the only allegation is that they visited offices to bring pressure, threat, intimidation etc. In other words they merely visited the offices but did not bring any pressure, coercion, threat etc. Visiting the office of the Bank authorities by a Federation or a Union Officer cannot be called as unfair labour practice or apprehended unfair labour practice. In order to prove unfair labour practice the petitioners should have given certain verifiable details to show that cause of action exists. They C should have shown the dates and time when they visited the petitioner and other officers of the Bank and the material whereby they want to show that unfair labour practice was apprehended. Since no verifiable details have been given the Court cannot see if the cause of action exists or not, which is the essential requirement of Order 7, rule 1(e) of C.P.C.
7. As for the other 33 respondents belonging to various branches of the Bank, not a single: circumstance or incidence has been given in the petition, whereby it could be concluded that they have been intending to commit unfair labour practice. Under the circumstances no cause of action has arisen. The petition must have stated some facts, some incidents, whereby, the Court could) conclude that an unfair labour practice is likely to happen.
8. Further the entire body of the petition other than the title of the petition does not name or impute anything to the respondents. The petitioners want the role of the respondents to be concluded by merely writing their names in the title. For instance para. 7 imputes coercion, intimidation etc. To the "office-bearers of the UBL Employees Union Jhang", while the names of the President and the General Secretary of U.B.L. Employees Union Jhang have been given alongwith the name of the U.B.L. Employees Union United Bank Limited Zonal Office, Jhang as respondents. Thus the petition levels allegations without naming the respondents in the body of the petition. Merely stating the names of respondents in the title without imputing them the specific role in the petition is not sufficient and makes the petition vague and unspecific.
9. As I have already stated, the petition seeks prohibition of unfair labour practice by the named officers of various unions (in the title) belonging to Rawalpindi, Burewala, D.G. Khan, Khanewal, Sahiwal, Okara, Chakwal, Jhelum, Islamabad, Sohawa, Wazirabad, Kalaske Mandi, Sialkot, Gujrat, Gujranwala, Mianwali, Sargodha, Rahimyar Khan and Bahawalpur. However not a single incident cause, or reason has been narrated why it should be done. It has not F been stated as to what act or omission did they commit or omit whereby it is concluded that an unfair labour practice is apprehended or is likely to occur. Thus even if, for the sake of argument, all that has been said in the petition is believed without any evidence still no case would be made out for action under Regulation 32(2) of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions)
Regulations, 1973.
10. In this view of the matter, I recall my order dated 1-9-1990 and reject this application under Order 7, rule 11, C.P.C. The main petition shall come up for arguments on maintainability on 16-12- 1990.