' This order will dispose of the above-titled three petitions as common question of law is involved in them. The brief facts narrated in the petitions are that the petitioners were appointed as Purchase Inspectors and posted at Bhabra Centre and fall within the definition of workmen under the I.R.O., 1969. It is also submitted that the petitioners were active members of Employees' Union, PASSCO and also active trade unionists. It is also submitted that Employees' Union merged into C.B.A. In the recent referendum and the petitioners worked diligently for the promotion of the Employees' Union and, therefore, the respondents were annoyed and committed unfair labour practice to victimize the petitioners. It is submitted that the respondents with mala fide intention conspired with the rival union and got lodged F.I.R. No,61 of 12-2-1999 and involved the petitioners on flimsy grounds and without issuance of charge-sheets, suspended the petitioners on the ground of F.I.R. That the respondents pressurised the petitioners to leave the C.B,A. Union but on refusal issued charge- sheets of misconduct and alongwith that statement of allegations was also given. The petitioners vehemently denied the charges -and contended that charges are false and fabricated and it is an outcome of conspiracy and petitioners are being victimized on trade union activities. It is submitted that ultimately a notice of personal hearing was issued to the petitioners and now the respondents are bent upon to terminate/dismiss the services of the petitioners. It was also submitted in the petitions that the letter of termination has been prepared but still not received. It is prayed that the respondents be directed to refrain from issuing and serving the termination letter and refrain from committing any further unfair labour practice.
2. On 29-4-1999 an order was passed that in the meantime, the present positions may not be disturbed and point of jurisdiction will be argued on the next date. By filing reply , the respondents have raised preliminary objections with the submissions that the petitions an not maintainable in this forum. Only the cases of unfair labour practice are instituted but the petitions so instituted are on misconceived perceptions. The respondents have also, mentioned section 2-A, of the Federal Services Tribunals Act, 1973 to claim that the N.I.R.C. Has got no jurisdiction. It is also submitted that a criminal case became basis of this dispute and led to the action against the petitioners, therefore, the innocence of the petitioners is to be determined by the competent criminal Court after trial and the N.I.R.C. Cannot adjudicate upon the matter.
3. On facts, it has been submitted that allegation is incorrect and F.I.R. Lodged against the petitioners by an independent party and respondents have nothing to do with the political affiliations of its employees, for which a lawful procedure was completely observed for taking disciplinary action against the petitioners. It is also submitted that the letter, dated 9-4-1999 for removing the petitioners from service was duly served and had taken operation and petitioners had full knowledge of the said order and, it is therefore, prayed that the petitions be dismissed with costs.
' Alongwith reply, the respondents have placed office order of removal and a very serious charge was made and the findings of the Inquiry Conunittee are reproduced as under:-- "And whereas as per findings of the Inquiry Committee adulteration of 'Mumni' at PC/RV Bhabra by M/s. Ghulam Shabbir PI and Muhammad Aslam API (accused Nos,1 and 2) have been proved; first time, 6 bags of 'Mumni' were purchased/mixed at the IC through Muhammad Aslam in 12 of 1998 and second time on 31-1-1999, Mr. Ghulam Shabbir managed another 10 bags of 'Mumni' and mixed with FAQ wheat stocks at the PC. On 12-2-1999, Ghulam Shabbir in collaboration with Muhammad Aslam API and Muhammad Latif PI purchased 11 bags of 'Mumni' and transferred to PC through Zakar Goods Transport Company for mixing purpose."
' Another annexure filed by the respondents fully supports the office order, dated 9-4-1999 by which the petitioners were removed.
4. I have carefully examined the pleadings and documents placed by the parties and am of the firm view and also persuaded by the judgments by the Honourable Superior Courts that the service of show-cause notice and charge-sheet on the grounds of misconduct could not be treated as acts 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 law/procedure that after inquiry 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 inquiry was being used against the employee as a cover for unjustified and unfair labour practice, N.I.R.C. Has no jurisdiction to go into the illegality or otherwise against the employee because departmental proceedings against employee was vested right of the employer and the Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere for such lawful exercise and action of the employer. In this case, the employer was performing an 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 the petitioners. It could not be said that the respondents have committed unfair labour practice because initiative of the disciplinary action and consequential proceedings was a right guaranteed to the employer and the action has been taken as a matter of right and not in view of victimization of the petitioners for their trade union activities and the proceedings against the employer could not be circumvented prematurely by pleading victimization.
5. The upshot of the case is that the petitioners failed to make out prima facie case of unfair labour practice because no event of victimization, on the part of the respondents, has been referred to in the petition to feel streak of victimization. No material or event has been described to substantiate the allegation of unfair labour practice. On the other hand, the respondent placed very vital documents particularly details of charge-sheet and removal order to substantiate that the matter was regarding departmental inquiry against misconduct of the petitioners for which the respondents have got the exclusive domain to proceed with. Under the circumstances, the petitions have got no force, the same are dismissed being not maintainable with no order as to costs.
6. The prohibitory order passed on 29-4-1999 is recalled and the stay applications are also dismissed. The case file is consigned to record after completion of necessary formalities.