' This order shall dispose of above numbered petitions/complaint/application under sections 22A(8) (g) 34, 53 and 10 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It is contended on behalf of petitioner that the petitioner's establishment is a company, which is primarily manufacturing "ammonia" for the purpose of supplying the same to the Pakistan Ordnance Factory, Wah and, therefore, the petitioner's Company is not only dealing with the highly sensitive, inflammable material but is also providing services to the Armed Forces of Pakistan (Ordnance Factories) and also supplying ammonia to general public.
2. The respondents union under the name and style of P.C.F.L. Labour Union was performing the functions of C.B.A. till 1986. This union was registered in contravention of the Ordinance. The Petitioner Company filed a complaint under section 10 of the Ordinance before the Registrar, Trade unions. After issuing show-cause notice to the then union, the Registrar Trade Unions Peshawar filed a complaint before the N.-W.F.P. Labour Court, Haripur for seeking permission to cancel the union, the Registrar Trade Unions Peshawar cancelled the registration of the then Labour Union on 10-9-1996. No appeal was filed against the cancellation of registration, therefore, the same has attained finality. The same office-bearers got registered a new union in the name of P.C.F.L.
Mazdoor Union which was basically the defunct Labour Union. The respondents Nos.1 to 7 under these circumstances have committed various acts of unfair labour practice within the meaning of clauses (a) (d) (e) of section 16(2) of the I.R.O., 1969. Therefore, the petitioner company was constrained to file a petition under Section 22-A(8)(g) read with Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C.
(Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 and under section 16(1) (d) of the Ordinance and the Commission issue prohibitory order and thereafter appointed Deputy Registrar of this Commission as Inquiry Officer the Deputy Registrar submitted a report which indicates the commission of unfair labour practice on the part of respondents. A settlement was arrived at between the management and the respondents on 21-8-1995 and subsequently signed on 11-12-1995 which is placed on record. The respondents in clear violation of the order of this commission dated 17-7-1995, settlement dated 21-8-1995 and the agreement dated 11-12-1995 took over the possession and control of the petitioner's company on 1-4-1996. The petitioner's company filed a complaint for lifting of the illegal occupation by the respondents and the commission appointed Deputy Registrars M/s Zakaullah Khan Khalil, Mr. Pervez Jalees Alvi and Director Labour Haripur as Inquiry Officers. All the three Inquiry Officers in conformity submitted the report stating that the respondents have taken possession and control of affairs of the petitioner's Company. On 17-4- 1996 this commission ordered the District Administration, Haripur to make arrangements for removal of impediments and lift the illegal occupation by respondents. The illegal possession and control over the company remained till 6-6-1996 and after many meetings between the District Administration and respondents the District Administration got the forcible occupation vacated and restored the possession to the petitioner's Company. Accordingly Deputy Commissioner, Haripur informed the Commission vide letter dated 9-6-1996 placed on record. In spite of this fact, the illegal strike continued till 18-6-1996. During the illegal occupation and strike from 1-4-1996 to 18-4-1996 all production, maintenance, commercial activities and supply of Ammonia to Armed Forces of Pakistan remained suspended which resulted an irreparable loss of Rs.3 Million per day and jeopardized the Defence Production of the country as well as that of general public. It is further contended that despite repeated request of the petitioner's Company to Deputy Director Labour, Haripur to initiate proceedings for lifting of illegal occupation and strike which commenced from 1- 4-1996 but he failed to do so. However, he filed a complaint under section 46 before the Labour Court on 19-6-1996, when the illegal occupation was lifted and strike called off on 18-6-1996. The Labour Court could not pass any order under section 46-A (3) of the Ordinance since the illegal strike was already called off on 18-6-1996. The respondents continuously kept on committing further acts of unfair labour practice through illegal and unlawful gate meetings, raising slogans in order to compel the management to accept their demands for reinstating the retrenched workmen by using intimidation, coercion, pressure, threats etc. The Registrar Trade Unions Haripur failed to proceed with the cancellation of respondent union vide petitioners' request dated 10-6- 1996 due to above acts of unfair labour practice as well as contravention of various provisions of the I.R.O., 1969. The petitioner's company was, therefore, constrained to file the present petition/complaint impleading the Registrar Trade Unions as respondent No.8. The complainant filed an affidavit and he was duly cross-examined. He supported the contention raised in the petition. In addition one witness Salim Akhtar Security Officer was produced on behalf of the petitioner/complainant who supported the contentions of the company in his cross-examination and confirmed the security report duly submitted by him with effect from 1-4-1996 to 18-6-1996, 20-6-1996, 22-6-1996 and 9-7-1996. He also stated in detail the incident dated 16-7-1996 and in cross-examination he confirmed the occurrence of incident dated 16-7-1996. The learned counsel for the petitioner prays for acceptance of petitions/complaint/application.
3. On the other hand, respondents filed comments thereby raising numerous preliminary as well as factual objections such as the petitioner/complainant has. no cause of action. The 'complaint is misuse of process of law. The complainant has not come to the commission with clean hands, hence, not entitled for any equitable relief. The complaint is an amalgamation of criminal and civil cause of action. A complaint simultaneously seeking civil relief and criminal relief could not be filed or entertained and is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has failed to pin point any act of unfair labour practice, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The prayed clause of the complaint is outside the ambit and scope of the power conferred upon the Commission. The respondents have mainly stressed upon the principle of res judicata and stated that the matter in issue has already been decided and the petitioner has failed to point out unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents. In support of contention of respondents Manzoor Hussain submitted his affidavit in the capacity of General Secretary of respondent Union and he was duly cross- examined by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondents prayed straight away for dismissal of the petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length,perused the record available on the file. Both the learned counsel have also submitted their written arguments in support of their respective contention.
5. I am of the considered view after going through the contents of the petition and comments and the documents furnished by both the parties and the written arguments placed on record that the petitioner Company has proved ingredients of section 22-A(8)(g), 34, 53 and 10 of the I.R.O., 1969.
' The evidence produced by the petitioner's company oral as well asiA documentary also support the case of the petitioner.
6. By comparative assessm ent of the evidence of both the parties it is very pertinent to point out that the respondent witness, Mazoor Hussain while filing the affidavit duly accepted the contention of the petitioner's company and corroborated the evidence of the petitioner's Company by referring letter dated 7-9-1996 to 9-9-1996 addressed to the concerned authorities. The relevant portion is reproduced below: "Please refer to my telephonic discussion of today. As explained to you on telephone that the P.C.F.L.
Union/C.B.A. have illegally and by show of force taken over the control of Pak-China Fertilizers (P.C.F.L) Plant at Haripur. In order to ensure the safety of plaint and machinery, it is requested that the supply of gas to P.C.F.L. Plant at Haripur may please be disconnected immediately under intimation to the undersigned."
' In his cross-examination Mr. Manzoor admitted that the registration of the Labour Union was cancelled in 1996 and after 10 days it was substituted by the respondent union. The commission passed an order to deliver the possession of the Factory to management, under the orders of the N.I.R.C. meetings were held in the office of Deputy Commissioner Haripur on various dates and also on 6-6-1996. The respondents did not produce any other witness in support of their contention.
7. Under these circumstances and admitted position it is providing services connected with or incidental to the Armed Forces of Pakistan (P.O.F.) Wah, I am of the considered, view no union can be legally registered in petitioner's Company as the provisions of the I.R.O, 1969 cannot be applied on the petitioner's Company in view of the clear bar the registration of the respondent union by respondent No.8 is illegal and the certificate of registration is nullity in the eyes of law. The respondents Nos.1 to 7 have contravened the provisions of sections 16, 22 (c), 43, 46, 50 and 54 and also violated the provisions of N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, Reliance is placed upon SCMR 1993 Pages 1837 and 1101 and PLD 1995 Lahore 333. .8. As discussed above, the petitions/application/complaint under section 22-A(8) (g), 34, 53 and 10 of the I.R.O., 1969 are allowed and the registration of the union is hereby cancelled. The respondents are sentenced with fine of Rs.1,000 each which is to be paid within a period of two weeks after the receipt of orders. In case of default simple imprisonment of one week shall be given and the amount of fine shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue. Furthermore, respondents Nos.1 to 7 are disqualified for a period of five years from the date of decision i.e. 19-12-1998. There shall be no orders as to costs. The file be consigned to record after completion of necessary formalities.
' Given under my hand and seal of this Commission this 19th day of December, 1998.