' This is application under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 read with Regulation 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 alleging unfair labour practice on the part of respondents.
2. Along with main application, application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C. (P & F) Regulations, 1973 supported by affidavit of Nisar Ali, General Secretary of petitioner union, for interim prohibitory orders, with prayer to direct the respondents not to bifurcate sweet department and also not to stop production of this department nor they should terminate the services of any workers of this department.
3. On 22-6-1998 the interim prohibitory order was passed by this Bench of Commission directing the respondents not to bifurcate sweet department and not to terminate the services of workers employed in the Sweet Department as mentioned in the list, Annexure A/5 till the next date.
4. The respondents filed their legal objections with comments on main petition and counter- affidavit on stay application challenging the maintainability of the petition.
5. Rana Mehmood Ali Khan, learned representative for applicant and Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned Advocate for the respondents have filed their written arguments.
6. Rana Mehmood Ali Khan, learned representative for the petitioner has contended that petitioner union is collective bargaining agent in the establishment of respondents and being C.B.A. it has submitted application under section 23 of the I.R.O., 1969 to the Secretary Labour, Government of Sindh for audit, vide Annexure A/4 to which the respondents establishment annoyed and started pressurizing the petitioner union to withdraw the said application. It was contended that the respondents management called the office-bearers on several times in the office in the first week of June, 1998 and pressurized them to withdraw the application for audit pending before the Secretary Labour or to face consequences of bifurcating the section of department of the factory and not allowing the workers in their department. It was further contended the respondents management was in the habit of committing acts of unfair labour practice by not giving payment of 5% profit 10-C bonus and other financial facilities to the workers as this application has been filed to restrain the respondents from committing acts of unfair labour practice. He has contended that the petitioner union has made out a prima facie case of unfair labour practice as such the interim prohibitory order granted on 22-6-1998 be confirmed.
7. Mr. S.M. Yaqoob, learned Advocate for the respondents has contended that petitioner has filed fictitious case as the workers of Sweet Department have no cause of complaint because they did not approach to the petitioner union or the respondent establishment. He has further contended that the matter of 5% is dealt with by the Board of Trustees in which two representative of each sides are participating and the balance sheets were presented before them and no application for appointment of auditor was submitted by the union to the Secretary Labour, Government of Sindh.
He has further contended that vague allegations have been made by the petitioner union which do not make out a case of unfair labour practice. No date, time and place of unfair labour practice or any instance has been mentioned in the petition. The allegation made by the petitioner about bifurcating the Sweet Department also does not fall within the ambit of section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969 as such the petition is liable to be dismissed and the interim prohibitory granted on 22-6-1998 by this Bench of Commission be vacated. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon on 1994 PLC 131 (d), 1994 PLC 747, 1994 PLC 762, 1998 PLC 268 and PLD 1988 SC 53(e).
8. I have considered the arguments submitted by the parties and perused the pleadings of the parties and I am of the considered view that there is nothing on record to show any instance of unfair ,labour practice which was ever committed by the respondents. No details of threats in the shape of time, place and date are mentioned in the petition. No document has been filed in support of the contention that the respondents management is committing acts of unfair labour practice. The allegation made in the petition is of general nature nor specific which cannot be entertained.
' For the aforesaid reasons, I find no merits in the petition as such the same is dismissed along with stay application under Regulations 32(2)(c) of N.I.R.C. (P & F) Regulations, 1973 and the interim prohibitory order passed on 22-6-1998 by this Bench of Commission stands recalled.
' Announced in open Court.
' Given under my hand and seal of the Commission, this 3rd day of October, 1998.