1. This is a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 along-with an application under Regulation 32 of the NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973, brought by Arif Ali and 42 other petitioners, against Gulshan Carpet Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Lahore, through its Factory Manager, respondent, containing the prayer that "the respondent and all the other connected persons be directed to conduct themselves and their affairs in a manner calculated to avoid any act of unfair labour practice on their part. The respondent be directed also not to dismiss, discharge, terminate, transfer, retrench or otherwise punish the petitioners."
2. The petitioners claim to have been made victim of excesses by the management at the instance of the rival union namely Gulshan Carpet Industries Mazdoor Union, in order to prevent them to persue their union activities effectively as officers of Gulshan Carpet Industries Workers' Union, stated to be certified as C.B.A. The petitioners also accused the management of having, at the midnight of 27-3-1993, arranged firing on the person of Arshad Mehmood, President of the Union in order to create terror and harassme nt among the workers employed in the factory. Arshad Mehmood is stated to have sustained injuries in the firing. He is also stated to have been transferred from Factory to Head Office in order to deter him from persuing trade union activities.
3. The allegations were denied in the comments furnished on behalf of management and the disciplinary proceedings were stated to have been initiated against the petitioners on the charge of `gross-misconduct'.
4. I have heard at length Ch. M. Khalid Farooq, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. H.R. Harder, Advocate for the respondent in the light of the material on the file.
5. Arif Ali and Liaqat Ali petitioners are facing disciplinary proceedings and show-cause notices dated 6-6-1993 (Annexures K and L) respectively have been issued to them, on the charge of having on the night of 31-5-1993 instigated the workers of night shift to go on strike. The remaining petitioners are being proceeded against for having gathered at the factory gate and stopped work at the instance of Arif Ali and Liaqat Ali petitioners.
6. It is well-settled that the initiation of disciplinary proceeding is a routine matter of the Industrial and Commercial Establishments and it does not lead to any presumption of unfair labour practice under section 15 of the Ordinance. The employer is duty bound to initiate such proceedings in cases of delinquencies because the maintenance of discipline is sole responsibility of employer.
7. Even if, there is any illegality or irregularity in charge-sheet, show --cause notice or explanation letter,. It does not attract the provisions of section 15 of the Ordinance. To hold an enquiry against its employees is the right of the employer which cannot be curbed or taken away, merely because the employee happens to be an office-bearer of the union. The issuance of charge-sheet to a worker found guilty of misconduct, is the prerogative of the employer and this Commission is not vested with any power to stay disciplinary proceedings against a worker, even if, such workman happens to be the office---bearer of the union. If an action is taken against a defaulting worker on account of his misconduct or remisness, he cannot take shelter under trade union activities. If no action is taken by the management pursuant to complaints of such nature, then the said activities will continue unchecked. The show-cause notices have been issued purely as a disciplinary measure under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 in respect of act of misconduct committed by the petitioners and have nothing to do with the union activities. The service of show-cause notices on ground of misconduct cannot be treated as an act of unfair labour practice as taking part in trade union activities does not give a licence to an employee to commit a misconduct. Therefore, the management cannot he restrained from proceeding further pursuant to the said show-cause notices. In fact if any action is taken against the petitioners they can challenge the same under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 which is an adequate and self --sufficient remedy. The view I have taken is not without considerable authority. It was held by the Commission in a case reported in 1989 PLC 447 that issuance of charge-sheet and holding of enquiry against a worker suspected of having committed a misconduct, was a statutory requirement not non-situating an offence of unfair labour practice. It was further held that the action of the management was not open to exception and it could not be brushed aside on the ground that charge-sheet had been given mala fide or on account of trade union activities of the worker. In yet another case National Motors Limited v. Muhammad Hanif 1987 PLC 547, the following observations were made by the Commission:--- "It is necessary to state clearly the duties and functions of the Commission in matters arising out of disciplinary actions against workman. In such matters the National Industrial Relations Commission does not sit in judgment over the action as an appellate forum. The Commission is not concerned with the deficiency, if any, of law or fact in the action and will not set aside the Management's decision merely adopted or of want of sufficiency of evidence upon which the action proceeds. Nor will the Commission interfere only because the action requires correction.
8. That may be function of the forum acting under suction 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. The Commission's jurisdiction is and as has rightly been invoked in this case, under clause (g) of subsection (8) of section 22-A of the I.R.O., 1969, upon allegation of unfair labour practice. In proceedings under this clause, the Commission has to examine, if the Management was motivated by any of the considerations enumerated in section 15(1). For this purpose, the Commission also scrutinises, if the management's action was based upon no evidence or upon misreading of evidence or was perverse to the evidence or was in colourable exercise of power. For, that, if established, will detract from the bona fides of the Management and may lend credibility to the allegation of unfair act. But by itself, this will not be sufficient for reaching a finding of unfair act unless one or more of the ingredients of section 15, which sets out on the part of employer, stands proved evidence. The examination of the Management's action is, therefore, only collateral, and a mere finding against the correctness of the action will not per se establish unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15."
9. The question, requiring determination would be whether the petition filed under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 discloses proper cause of action. The basic matter against which the petitioners have approached this forum is the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners. Now, whether the charges levelled against them by the Management are correct or not, is a matter to be enquired into and decided under the relevant law by the management itself. And in case, the charges are proved against them by the management they can hardly assail the same as constituting unfair labour practice not-with-standing their assertions in that regard.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, finding no force in this petition, I dismiss the same and vacate the order dated 24-6-1993.