This order will dispose of stay application whereby the petitioners have prayed for restraining the respondents, not to dismiss, discharge, remove, retrench, transfer, terminate, harass or pressurize the petitioners to tender resignations during the pendency of main case.
2. On 24-1-1993 petitioners filed the main case under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 alleging unfair labour practice on the part of respondents. On the same day ad interim stay order was granted against which the respondents have filed their legal objections and comments duly verified on oath.
3. Briefly the case of the petitioners in main case is that the petitioners No.1 is C.B.A. Of workers on the establishment of respondent No. 1 of which remaining petitioners excepting Muhammad Ali are employees and that they are also the office-bearers, shop steward and active members. It is said that the petitioners Nos. 3 to 9 are under suspension and that petitioners Nos. 10 and 11 have been issued charge sheet which are said to be false. It is the case of the petitioners that they had submitted charter of demands which was ultimately taken to Labour Appellate Tribunal which decided it on 27-2-1992 but thereafter the management has been pressurising and issuing false charge---sheets to the petitioners. In this connection petitioners had filed Case No.24(153)/92-K before this Bench and in which ad interim stay was granted on 22-3-1992. However the petitioners participate in the enquiry proceedings but it is alleged that the same has been conducted against the provisions of law and even the assistance of co-workers has been refused on which a case of unfair labour practice was filed in which ad interim order was granted on 5-6-1990 but the same case was dismissed on 31-8-1991 against which the petitioners filed Appeal No. 12(113)/9r which was allowed where after petitioners reported for duties on 3-8-1992 but it is alleged that the management has been misbehaving with the petitioners and forcing them to resign. It is also alleged that the management has dismissed some of the petitioners in spite of the decision of Full Bench of this commission in appeal. It is also alleged that enquiry officer did not record the statements correctly and also refused the assistance of co-worker against which protest letter dated 10-1-1993 was sent under postal certificate. The petitioners then filed this case for declaring the above acts as unfair labour practice and also prayed that the respondents be restrained to dismiss, discharge, terminate, transfer by way of unfair labour practice and also to file the proceedings of domestic enquiry before this commission.
4. Whereas the respondents through their legal objection and comments have denied the allegations of unfair labour practice and have contended that they have not received the protest letter dated 10-1-1993. They have also contended that the petitioners Mushtaq Ahmed, Muhammad Nadeem and Muhammad Amir have already been dismissed from service and that the petitioners Khalid Iqbal, Muhammad Yaqoob and Muhammad Zahid have been awarded punishment after the domestic enquiry by withholding their increments. In this petition the learned Advocate had deleted the names of Mushtaq Ahmed, Mumtaz Ahmad, Muhammad Usman and Amir Ali.
5. This application was partly argued orally and thereafter the learned advocates for both the parties also submitted their arguments in writing.
6. The learned Advocates for both the Advocates submitted their arguments on the lines of their pleadings mentioned above.
7. In the matter of allegation of unfair labour practice to the effect that the management has been misbehaving with the petitioners or forcing them to tender resignations, there is a word against word as the management have denied these allegations. The management have also denied the allegations of receiving protest letter dated 10-1-1993 said to have been sent under postal receipt where after the respondents have failed to produce evidence that the said letter was in fact served upon the management. In fact the idea of sending the protest letter was to lend support to the allegation of unfair labour practice. Then the plea of the respondents that some of the above workers/petitioners who have been dismissed or punished in domestic enquiry have not been denied as such they are not entitled to the relief of interim stay. Thereafter only the petitioners Muhammad Arif, Muhammad Saleem, Muhammad Usman and Muhammad Hassan are to be considered for grant or otherwise of the interim "stay. But, the management have produced the original proceedings of their domestic enquiry against them and petitioners have failed to show anything in these proceedings on the basis of which their allegation of unfair labour practice can be believed. The Enquiry officer has rightly disallowed the prayer of assistance of co-worker through Muhammad Ali, the General Secretary of the petitioners-union because he had admittedly been dismissed from service and was no longer serving with the petitioners who were facing the domestic enquiry. Moreover, this Commission does not sit in judgment over the action of management against the worker as an appellate forum as has been held by the Full Bench of this commission which has been reported in 1987 PLC 547.
8. Under the circumstances it is held that the petitioners have failed to make out prima facie case for grant/arbitration of the interim stay as such this application is hereby dismissed. Consequently ad interim stay granted earlier also stands recalled. Put off to 29-3-1994 for framing of issues.
Announced in open Court, this 17th day of March, 1994. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.