' This is a petition under section 22A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 filed by Lafayette Industries Synthetic Ltd. Labour Union through its General Secretary Muhammad Rafique with the contention that the petitioner union is a newly registered trade union i,e, on 24-5-1995 by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Islamabad. It was contended that cause of the formation and registration of new union, the respondent/establishment is annoyed and is bent upon committing unfair labour practice by way of victimization of the members and office-bearers of the petitioner union. Under such circumstances, the petition was registered and interim injunction was issued in favour of the petitioner on 31-5-1995.
2. The petition was strongly contested by the respondents by way of filing of written statement and rejoinder to the stay application. The learned counsel for the respondents raised certain preliminary legal objections as to the maintainability of the petition.
3. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the documents filed on record. The record of the case shows that the petitioner union was formulated and was registered with the N.I.R.C. On 24-5-1995. It is, however, an admitted feature that there existed three registered unions in the Establishment of Lafayette Industries Limited and out of these three unions, the Lafayette Industries Limited Workers Union which is locally registered trade union, is the C.BA. Of the establishment. This C.BA. Certificate was issued to the Lafayette Industries Limited Workers Union Hub on 30-3-1995 by the Registrar, Trade Union Hub, Balochistan. The record reveals that two charge-sheets/show-cause notices were issued to the two office-bearers of the petitioner union namely Raza Muhammad, Member Managing Committee and Muhammad Ibrahim Doda, Vice- President upon different allegations including absence from duty, dated 31-5-1995. The record of the case further reveals that an F.I.R. Was also lodged in Hub Police Station for the offences under sections 147, 148, 447, 448, P.P.C. Read with section 337 of Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, on 19-4-1995 against a few persons, including Raza Muhammad, Member Managing Committee and Gul Khan (Finance Secretary) of the petitioner union. The said Gul Khan (Finance Secretary) filed an application before the respondent that he on account of his free will and choice wants to leave the job/resign, which was accepted on 18-4-1995. There is also an application filed by the President of the petitioner union namely Ch. Zafar Amin to the same affect which was allowed on 19-4-1995, meaning thereby that the said two persons have resigned from the job on account of their reasons after getting due compensation from the respondents. However, I feel it necessary to observe here that none of the said persons have filed any affidavit before this Commission that the resignations were obtained through force or coercion nor it was pleaded as such before this Commission.
Therefore, I have no other option but to hold that the resignations tendered by the said two persons/office bearers of the petitioner union, are voluntary acts on their part and for such voluntary acts of a worker, the employer cannot be held liable in any manner, such voluntary acts do not find any place in the definition of unfair labour practice as stipulated in the provisions of section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969. Similarly, the issuance of charge-sheets or show-cause notices for the alleged absence of the employee is also prerogative of an employer and is one of the fundamental right of the employer to proceed against the employee in respect of disciplinary or ancillary matters. Mere issuance of show-cause notices or charge-sheets, to an employee by the employer cannot be termed as an act of unfair labour practice until and unless, is covered by the other required conditions, stipulated by the provisions of section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969, this view is supported by two judgments i,e, National Motors Limited v. Muhammad Hanif reported in 1987 PLC 547 and Abdul Hanif v. HBFC etc. Reported in 1995 PLC 423. I am also of the view that it is the function of the Criminal Court having jurisdiction to judge the veracity of F.I.R. No, 17095, dated 19-4- 1995 and this Commission have got no jurisdiction to adjudge the said F.I.R. As false and fabricated one.
4. As a result of the above discussion I do not find any merits in the petition at this stage, requiring interference of this Commission, however, in view of the situation that the office bearers of the petitioners' union are either charge-sheeted, resigned or are proceeded against by criminal case, I deem it proper to exercise my powers under section 22-A(8)(g) for the I.R.O., 1969 read with Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, and the respondents are restrained from committing any act of unfair labour practice in general against the officers of the petitioner union. The petition is disposed of as partly accepted, without any orders as to costs.