' The facts narrated in this petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969, are that the petitioner was Cashier in the National Bank of Pakistan, Warbarton Branch, District Sheikhupura and by nature of duties he was performing his duties as Cashier and was fallen within the definition of 'workman' under the I.R.O. And other labour laws and not civil servant. It is submitted that the petitioner was an active Member of N.B.P. Employees' Union which also enjoys the status of C.B.A. It is further submitted by the petitioner that the respondents are in league with the rival union and asked the petitioner so many times to leave the N.B.P. Employees' Union and join rival union but the petitioner flatly refused and therefore, the respondent with mala fide intention and due to his trade union activities suspended the petitioner on 30-12-1982 and false and illegal charge-sheet was issued to him on 16-9-1985 and ultimately the respondents with mala fide intention terminated the services of the petitioner on 13-3-1986.
2. The petitioner challenged the termination order before this Bench and my predecessor learned Member Mr. Agha Saleem Khursheed vide order, dated 4-11-1996 reinstated the petitioner with full back benefits which was challenged by the respondents before the Honourable High Court and Honourable High Court in W.P. No, 21286 of 1996 vide order, dated 23-10-1998 set aside the order, dated 4-11-1996 and remanded the case to N.I.R.C. For fresh decision in accordance with law.
3. The judgment of the Honourable High Court is not only relevant but contains the details of the whole background of the case.
4. The respondents had also filed preliminary objections on 23-4-1995 as below:--
(1) That the honourable Commission lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter hence the petition is liable to be dismissed.
(2) That the present petition has been filed with mala fide intention and there is gross- misrepresentation and concealment of material facts, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
(3) That there is no relationship of employer and employee between the petitioner and respondents hence the petition is not maintainable.
' On facts it is submitted by the respondent that petitioner committed fraud in collaboration with one Mr. Ghulam Rasool Alvi, (ex-Bank Officer). An enquiry into the matter was held. The petitioner and his co-accused were found guilty, resultantly, on the basis of enquiry report and in the light of his offence, he was dismissed from the service. It is further submitted that the matter that the petitioner is member of any trade union has no relevancy with the under reply petition as he committed an offence and accordingly action was taken against him. There was no question of victimisation either on the basis of trade union activities or political affiliation. It is further submitted that the disciplinary action of the respondents is fully covered and supported by documentary evidence which is available on the record, that full opportunity to the petitioner was given to participate in the enquiry.
4. There is no need to produce further facts, because much material is available on the record being case of misconduct and is being decided on the point of jurisdiction.
5. From the examination of the record, it appears that there is no material on the record to substantiate that this is a case of unfair labour practice and rather the petitioner has tried to get protection under the I.R.O. Despite the fact that this is a case of disciplinary action regarding misconduct.
6. I am of the firm view and also persuaded by the judgment of the Honouable superior Courts that the service of the show-cause notice and charge-sheet on the grounds of misconduct, could not be treated as act of unfair labour practice, as taking part in trade union activities would not give licence to an employee to commit misconduct and the management could not proceed against him in such-like matter. It is well-settled procedure that after the enquiry is finalised and the employee is found guilty, he could assail the same before the relevant forum as to whether the charge against him was correct or not, because it was a matter to be enquired into and decided under relevant law by the employer himself and in case charges against him were proved, he could hardly challenge the same as constituting unfair labour practice on the part of the employer.
Departmental proceedings against employee is an exclusive domain of employer and unless there is a streak of unfair labour practice, and enquiry was being used against the employee as a cover for unjustified and unfair labour practice, N.I.R.C. Would have no jurisdiction to go into regularity or otherwise against the employees because departmental proceedings against employee was vested right of the employer and Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with such lawful exercise or action of the employer. In this case, the employer was performing the act which he was exercising as right given to him under the law and the charge-sheet issued is a crystal clear ground for misconduct on the part of petitioner. It could not be said that the respondent had committed unfair labour practice because initiation of disciplinary action and consequential proceedings was a right guaranteed of the employer and action had been taken as a matter of right and not in view of victimization of the petitioner for his trade union activities and the proceedings against the employer could not be circumvented prematurely by pleading victimization.
7. The upshot of the case is that the petitioner failed to make out prima facie case of unfair labour practice because no event of any victimisation on the part of the petitioner has been referred to in the petition to feel streak of victimization. On the other hand respondent placed very vital documents particularly the detail of charge-sheet and enquiry report to substantiate that the matter was regarding departmental enquiry against misconduct of the petitioner for which the respondent has got the exclusive domain to proceed with. Under the circumstances the petition has got no force, the same is dismissed being not maintainable with no order as to cost. The stay application is also dismissed. The case file is consigned to record after completion of necessary formalities.