' This is an application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations, 1973 filed by Mr.Muharnmad Moosa Laghari, Advocate for the petitioner for interim prohibitory orders, support by affidavit of Mr. Abdul Salam Rajput Joint Secretary of the petitioner union, directing the respondents not to eject the petitioner union from their offices situated at Gul Centre, Zonal Office, Station Road, Lajpat Road, and at Regional Office, Gul Centre and not to disconnect their telephone connection and snatch the vehicle No,BA-8254 and to conduct their affairs in manner calculated to avoid occurrence of unfair labor practice.
2. On 10-6-1996, while admitting the main petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 read with Regulation 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations, 1973, the then learned Member of this Commission had passed the orders on stay application, directing the respondents not to reject the petitioner union from their union offices situated at Gull Centre Zonal Office, Station Road, Lajpat Road and at Regional Office Gull Centre and/or disturb their possession and disconnect their telephone connection and not to take over/snatch vehicle BA-8254 till the next date of hearing.
3. On the main petition preliminary legal objections and written statement was filed by respondents. An application supported by affidavit of Syed Sher Ali Shah, Zonal Chief, Hyderabad was also filed for vacating the orders dated 10-6-1996 and for dismissal of the petition.
4. Mr. Muhammad Moosa Laghari, Advocate for petitioner filed his written arguments and an application for additional evidence was also filed by him on 28-4-1997, supported by affidavit of Mr. Shabbir Ahmed, President of the petitioner union and objections were filed on this application by Mr. Mahmood Abdul Ghani, Advocate for respondents supported by affidavit of Mr. Mashallah Khan, Officer Grade-I, United Bank Limited, Hyderabad and I propose to dispose of this application also with this order.
5. Mr. Muhammad Moosa Laghari, the learned Advocate for petitioner in his written arguments has contended that the respondents have provided the union offices to the applicant union along with telephones and also vehicle for performing their union activities. Thereafter, due to change of administration of the United Bank Limited the respondents Nos.2 and 3 stated harassing the petitioners' union and its office-bearers and false case was filed against Mr. Shabbir Ahmed, President and Abdul Hameed Memon, who were arrested by F.I.A. The office-bearers have also been charge sheeted by the respondents. The respondents Nos.2 and 3 have threatened office- bearers to vacate the office of the union and also to hand-over the vehicle. One of the vehicle i,e, Suzuki FX Car has been snatched by the respondents and the respondents are attempting for forcibly snatching the vehicle No,BA-8254 from the office-bearers of the union, as such these facilities, which are being availed of by the petitioner union since about last 15/20 years are being illegally snatched from them by the respondents and this act amounts to unfair labour practice. He has contended that interim prohibitory order passed on 10-6-1996 be confirmed.
6. Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani, the learned Advocate for respondents has contended in his arguments that there is no right guaranteed and secured to the petitioner union under any law, settlement or award for occupying the premises of the respondents' Bank for using the same as union office along with the telephones and using the vehicles of the respondents' Bank. The status of the union in occupying the premises of the respondents' Bank is that of licensee and the respondents' Bank is deemed to be a Licensor and respondents' Bank at any time can withdraw this licence. The respondents has asked the applicant union to vacate the premises and this act is not an act of unfair labour practice. He has contended that it is also not a right guaranteed and secured under any law, award or settlement to use the vehicle of the respondents' Bank by the office-bearers of the petitioner union, as such after the respondents' Bank has asked the applicant union to hand-over the vehicle, the same thereafter to be retained by the office-bearers of the applicant union, is illegal possession, for which the N.I.R.C. May not protect the illegal possession by issuing prohibitory order as prayed by the applicant union. In support of his contention he has placed his reliance on order of Full Bench of the N.I.R.C. Passed in Appeal No,12(40) of 1990/Shahid Ali Khan Niazi, Assistant, Peoples Colony Branch, United Bank Limited, Faisalabad and another v.
Bakhshish A. Chaudhry, Vice-President, United Bank Limited, Zonal Head, Market Zone, Faisalabad and another, where in para. No, 8 it was observed that "by continuing in possession after the employer (licensor) has directed the union (licensee) to vacate the room No,6 the very" conduct of the union in fact constitutes an unlawful demand to continue in Averse possession of a part of the building of the Bank after the same has been denied to it lawfully".
7. He has also referred order passed in Appeal No, 12(2) of 1993 (United Bank Limited Employees Federation through Abdul Aziz Memon and others v. United Bank Limited through its President, I. I.
Chundrigar Road, Karachi, where the Full Bench of the N.I.R.C. Has observed that "appellant and its federating units may have been enjoying the facilities of telephone, electricity, furniture and transport along with P.O.L. Since long without any interruption from the Management side, but the fact cannot be lost sight of that the appellant had been enjoying these facilities not as a matter of right but as a matter of grace. The Management could in the circumstances withdraw these facilities at any time without notice to the appellant. He has also referred order of learned Member of N.I.R.C. Passed in Case No,24 (177) of 1992, where it was observed that union has no vested right to establish an office in the precincts of the establishment in which they are serving. The trade Union activities within the premises of an establishment are not approved by labour laws. It appears that the occupation of the room is being used as a tool of pressure against the management for acceptance of demands of the union. In Case No,12(40) of 1990 referred to above, Full Bench of this Commission held that mere occupation of the room in the premises of employer after termination of their license constituted both, a demand and measure of pressure to accept the demand of its retention on permanent basis. The Management has a vested right to have full control and possession of its premises and has lightly approached this Court for the enforcement of their right. I, therefore, allow this application and direct the respondent to vacate the room occupied by them as office and hand-over its peaceful possession to the petitioners within a period of 15 days."
8. Mr.Mehmood Abdul Ghani, learned Advocate for respondents has also placed reliance on Case bearing No,7(2)/92:24(12)92 (United Bank Limited. Employees Union through its General Secretary Raja Muhammad Sarfraz Khan, U.B.L., Railway Road, Sargodha Zonal Head, United Bank Limited Zonal Office, Railway Road Sargodha, where the learned Member N.I.R.C. In case of vehicle in possession of union office-bearers had observed that "the petitioner does not claim the facility under any law or settlement. He claims to be enjoying it as a matter of long practice and custom which is clearly beyond the pale of the sections 22-B(3)(a) and 34 of the I.R.O., 1969.
9. From the facts as transpired from the petition filed by the petitioner union, they are occupying four offices in the premises of respondents' Bank as their union offices. In three offices, telephone facility has been installed. There is one vehicle No, BA-8254 in the possession of office-bearers of the union. The office-bearers of union are not occupying these premises of the respondents' Bank and are not having the possession of vehicle, as right secured and guaranteed under any law, award or settlement. This had been given to them as grace by the respondents' Management.
10. In view of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Mehmood Abdul Ghani, the petitioner union is only licensee and no other right, is to the petitioner. Union to continue in possession of the offices and the vehicle. Since respondents' Bank has asked them to return back the premises and the vehicle to them, the petitioner union is then bound to deliver the possession to the respondents' Bank. This act of the respondents' asking the petitioner union for delivery of the office premises and vehicle, is not an act unfair labor practice, as such the interim prohibitory order passed on 10-6-1996 is vacated and the application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C. (P & F)
Regulation, 1973 filed by the petitioner is dismissed, so also the main petition filed under section 22- A(8)(g) of the LR.O., 1969 along with application for additional evidence being not maintainable.
However, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner union has been using the offices since long, having been given to them by the respondents' Management and also the vehicle, this Commission allows the petitioner to retain the vehicle and the premises of the offices for the period of 30 days from the date of this order, so as to enable the petitioner union to arrange other premises for their union office and vehicle at their own expenses if they so need for their union activities, and after expiry of 30 days of the date of this order, the premises of the offices and the vehicle along with the telephone be delivered to the respondents' Management by the petitioner union.
' Announced in open Court.