1. Government Medical Stores Depot Employees' Union has brought this application under section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 (hereinafter called the I. R. O. For getting a declaration that the show-cause notice Annexure 'A' and order Annexure 'B' be declared as unlawful and the respondents be restrained from issuing and enforcing any such orders during the pendency of this case. It bas been urged in the petition that vide letter Annexure 'B' the petitioner-Union has been directed to stop its activities forthwith unless the Government permits them.
2. Section 22 does not give any right to any worker or Union to bring any application rather than section deals with the question of the determina--tion of a Collective Bargaining Agent. In Para. No. 6 it is mentioned that the Union has been stopped from making representations to the higher authorities direct and from issuing press statements and that an at is unfair labour practice under section 15 of the I. R. O. If the at of making representations against the officers direct to the higher authorities and giving press statements are within the rights of the Union, of course, restraining them from such acts would give a rig it to come to the Labour Court, but I do not think that the acts from which the Union had been stopped fall Within the rights of the Union. If any action has been taken against a worker, he has a right of appeal and to this extent he can exercise it but mak--ing representations and complaints at random without exercising any right of appeal is not a right of appeal of any Union. Likewise giving press statement is not a right but amounts to propaganda and mud-throwing which cannot be the intention of the Legislature to recognise it as a right of Unions. Proper procedure is given in sections 26-32 of the I. R. O. For doing some good to the workers and Unions can have recourse to this procedure. In the whole I. R. O. It cannot be found anywhere that a Union can ma k direct complaints to the higher authorities not by way of exercising of an appeal or to give press statements laying aspersions against officers Learned representative of the petitioner has made reference to section 15 (1) Clause (d)(ii) and has argued that the action which is being taken against the petitioner amounts to unfair labour practice.
3. Clause (d) reads as under: "No employer or Trade Union of employers and no person acting on behalf of either shall dismiss, discharge, remove from employment or transfer or threaten to dismiss, discharge or remove from employment or transfer a workman or injure or threaten to injure him in respect of his employment by reason that the workman:
(ii) participates in the promotion, formation or activities of a Trade Union."
4. Laying aspersions in the press notes against immediate and superior officer and giving applications against them to the higher authorities direct without their permission does not amount to participation in the promotion, formation or activities of a Trade Union. If any employee thinks that his superior officer is corrupt or has made any embezzlement, he may send a confidential application to the superior officers first taking permission from him but laying aspersions in press notes is not a contractive policy and by no stretch of imagination, it can by said that the Legislature while allowing the workers to form a Union intended and allowed that they could lay aspersions against their superior officers in press statements and ire open application, If any such matter is to be brought to the notice of the proper authority, the intention is not to defame the officer complained against but the purpose is to save the Government and the public from the nefarious activities of such an officer and such a purpose can be fully achieved if a confidential applica--tion is made to his boss. A subordinate cannot be allowed to lay aspersion against his officers and throw mud upon them at random. If this practice is allowed, the result will be mal-administration because whenever a controll--ing officer will exercise his powers and will supervise the work of his sub--ordinates, making allegations against him would make an attempt to harrass him. The Representative of the petitioner has drawn my attention to the definition of Trade Unions given in section 2 (xxvi) which reads as under: "A Trade Union is a combination of workmen or employers with the primary purpose of regulating the relation between workmen and employers, or between workmen and workmen or between employers and employers or to impose restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business. Besides the primary objects, the rules of a Trade Union may contain civil, educational, social and cultural objects which are not inconsistent with the primacy objects or opposed to any law. Subject to this, the Ordinance places no restriction on the various objects which Trade Union may pursue.
5. This definition nowhere allows a Union to make propagenda against a boss by waking press statements and making open allegations against him when C particularly the Government has issued instructions that without permission it should not be done. Such acts cannot be said to have been done for the purpose of regulating the relations between workmen and the employers nor are meant for imposing restrictive conditions on the conduct of any trade or business. The Representative of the petitioner has argued that since in the definition it is written that the purpose of the Union is to impose restrictive conditions on the conduct, therefore, they can make allegations in open applications or in newspapers against the higher authorities. I do not think that the Representative has not understood the definition, because the words are quite clear that the purpose is to impose restrictive conditions on the conduct of any Trade or business and not on, the conduct of any officer. By the acts which the petitioner-Unions has committed, the relations between workmen and employers had been very much strained instead of being regulated with the result that the very purpose of the formation of the Trade Unions which is given in the definition has been defeated. It has also been argued before me that without issuing press statements the higher authorities do not hear the voice of the Unions; therefore, they have no other medium to convey the real facts to the cars of the proper authorities. I do not think that this is correct. The business of the Trade Union is to look after and safeguard the interests of the workers and for their rights raise demands for which a procedure is given in section 26-32. They can demand that a corrupt officer be transferred or removed from service. As the action, which is being taken against certain office-holders of the Union, does not amount to unfair labour practice, the petition is not maintainable and thus is dismissed in limine.