' This order will dispose of Application under Regulation 32(2)(b) (c)(d) of N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulation, 1973 filed by petitioner supported by his affidavit to restrain the respondents, their agents, men, servants or persons connected with them from transferring the petitioner or terminating/dismissing the petitioner from employment. It is further prayed that respondents and their men be restrained from creating nuisance and hindrance for performing his duties and further restrain them from pressuring the petitioner to resign the employment or from the union in any manner whatsoever till the final disposal of the main petition.
2. On 26-5-1998, this Bench of Commission has passed interim prohibitory order whereby the respondents and persons connected with them were restrained from transferring, terminating or dismissing the petitioner from employment till the next date.
3. Muhammad Farooq Ali, Manager Accounts of respondents filed his counter-affidavit on stay application and petitioner filed his affidavit-in-rejoinder.
4. On 6-7-1998, said Muhammad Farooq Ali, Manager Accounts filed an additional affidavit on behalf of the petitioner and the petitioner filed counter-affidavit on said affidavit.
5. I have heard the arguments advanced by Mr. M.A.K. Azamti learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Muhammad Tasnim, learned counsel for the respondents on stay application and have gone through the pleadings.
6. Mr. M.A.K. Azmati learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is active member of ACE (Pvt.) Ltd. Employees' Union which is C.B. A. In the establishment of respondents. It was further contended that previously the petitioner was Fiance Secretary of the said C.B.A. He took part in the elections of the union but he had lost, and due to his trade union activities, the respondents are annoyed with the petitioner, particularly respondent No,2, Muhammad Farooq Ali, Manager Accounts. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said respondent called the petitioner on 20-5-1998 at 4-00 p.m. And had threatened him to resign from the employment otherwise he will be transferred from Karachi to Lahore. Mr. M.A.K. Azmati learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner is husband of Mrs. Fahmi Hameed, Assistant Accountant who was also victimized by the respondents for which she had filed a case before this Bench of Commission under section 22-A0(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 which was dismissed.
He has further contended that the respondents were pressurising the petitioner to advise his wife Mrs. Fahimi Hameed to accept her transfer order but since he had refused to do so, the respondents particularly respondent No,2 had decided to teach him lesson by way of pressurising and victimizing him due to his trade union activities and has terminated his service during the pendency of interim prohibitory order as such this act of respondents amounts to be an act of unfair labour practice; therefore, the application for stay be allowed and the interim prohibitory order passed by this Bench of Commission on 26-5-1998 be confirmed.
7. Mr. Muhammad Tasnim, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that no case of unfair labour practice has been made out by the petitioner as no specific instance has been disclosed in the petition. No specific allegation with regard to mala fide has been specifically pleaded. He . Has further contended that taking any disciplinary action or transferring any employee is prerogative right of the employer which cannot be taken away by any Court of law. He has further contended that the respondents have specifically denied the allegation of unfair labour practice as alleged by the petitioner. He has further contended that the petitioner has been retrenched under the retrenchment policy in which the petitioner fully participated by sitting side by side in the Accounts Department with Mr. Nusratullah, Accountant who has prepared the retrenchment policy and keeping in view that said policy in which the petitioner's name was to be mentioned, he filed present petition on the false and misconceived plea of unfair labour practice by suppressing the actual facts and the policy of retrenchment was prepared in the universal principle of "last in first go" as such no case of unfair labour practice is made out by the petitioner, therefore, the application for stay be dismissed and the interim prohibitory order passed by this Bench of Commission 26-6-1998 be recalled.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by Mr. M.A.K. Azmati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Muhammad Tasnim learned counsel for the respondents and have gone through the pleadings and material placed on record by the parties.
9. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is an active member of ACE (Pvt.) Ltd. Employees'
Union and not an office-bearer. It is also an admitted position that the petitioner was Finance Secretary of the said union previously but there is nothing on record to show whether at that time the petitioner was victimized by the respondents due to his trade union activities or any action was taken against him on any ground by the respondents management. Had there been any grudge with the petitioner due to his trade union activities, the respondents would have victimized the petitioner at that time when he was an office-bearer. Now he is only member of the union and in my opinion there is nothing on record to show whether the respondents are committing or have committed any act of unfair labour practice specifying the details and in absence of such evidence, it cannot be said that the respondents are committing acts of unfair labour practice. It is further mentioned that the plea of the petitioner, that due to his relationship with Mrs. Fahimi Hameed being her husband, he has been picked up by the management and is being victimized though it is also an admitted position that the case of Mrs. Fahimi Hameed, which was filed under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 on the allegation of unfair labour practice was also dismissed by this Bench of Commission vide order, dated 27-5-1998. The respondents have filed on record the retrenchment policy and according to them 23 persons have been retrenched by the respondents including the petitioner and no other person from them has approached to the Court challenging his retrenchment as an illegal or an act of unfair labour practice. The petitioner was also retrenched under the policy vide letter, dated 8-6-1998 and in my mind, this act of the respondents is not an act of unfair labour practice as such this Bench of Commission cannot interfere in the law functioning of the respondents management. At this stage there is nothing on record to show whether the petitioner is being victimized due to his trade union activities. No specific instance has been disclosed by the petitioner giving the details of acts of unfair labour practice.
' For the reasons stated above, I do not find any substantial material produced by the petitioner to establish a case of unfair labour practice, as such the Application under Regulation 32(2)(a)(b)(c)
(d) of N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations, 1973 filed by the petitioner, is hereby dismissed and the interim prohibitory order passed by this Bench of Commission on 26-5-1998 stands recalled. To come up on 15-12-1998 for filing affidavit-in-evidence by the petitioner.