' This order will dispose of the applications filed by the petitioners under Regulation 32(2) of the N.LR.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 alongwith their petitions filed under section 22- A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
2. The brief facts as stated in their respective petitions are that the petitioners were employed with the respondents as Security Guards/Assistant Chief Security Officer/Senior Security Officer and had good record of service. Due to bomb blast in the locality, the Deputy Commissioner and Senior Superintendent of Police, Sialkot, had visited the premises several times and had directed that strict checking should be done to avoid mishap. On 27-7-1998, Basharat Ali, NLC Driver, refused to offer his vehicle for checking and a dispute arose between Zafar Iqbal etc., and the said driver. A show- cause notice was then issued to the petitioners. Thereafter, signatures . Were obtained on blank papers forcibly on which apologies were prepared. Subsequently, the petitioners were terminated illegally. The petitioners gave .Grievance notice to the respondents but no decision was taken.
There were two unions in the respondent establishment. The petitioners were union members. They were penalised intentionally by respondent No,2. The order of dismissal was, therefore, unsustainable being mala fide and the result of victimization on account of their participation in their trade union activities.
3. Alongwith the main petitions a separate application under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C.
(Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 was also filed seeking suspension of the impugned order, dated 19-9-1998.
4. Notices of the petitions/stay applications were issued to the respondents for 21-11-1998. Written comments were filed by the respondents. Arguments on the point of jurisdiction as well as on the stay applications were addressed by the parties' counsel.
5. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioners fell within the definition of workmen. They were victimized because of their union activities and were terminated illegally without holding an enquiry, which constituted unfair labour practice. On facts, it was stated that the driver of NLC truck had in fact beaten the Guard. Ten persons were involved by the respondents in that incident. Five out of them were subsequently exonerated while five others were terminated, including the petitioners. In this way, discrimination was made. Hay. Anwar, had in fact quarreled with NLC driver but he was exonerated whereas the petitioners were illegally removed from service on account of their being active members of the trade union. It was further stated that after the petitioners had sent grievance notices to the respondents, an apology letter was got signed from the petitioners under pressure with a promise that the petitioners will be let off with minor punishment, but they were removed from service subsequently. The counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submitted that Basharat Ali driver, NLC came at 05-00 a.m. In the morning on 17-8-1998 and he went to say his prayer in the mosque. Hay. Anwar Shah quarrelled with him as to why he had gone to the mosque without permission. At 08.00 a.m. Nazir, Senior Security Officer came on duty. Mirza Shaukat Ali petitioner also came there. They alongwith the petitioners and other framed an unlawful assembly, went into nearby hotel, pulled Basharat Ali driver of NLC from there and brought him into the Dryport and gave severe beatings to him. He was so injured that he was nearing death. He was removed immediately to the hospital. The matter went up to the General Headquarters. The Army Officers held an enquiry and Basharat driver was given Court Marshal for 15 days. Military Court recommended the removal of the petitioners. The petitioners gave in writing to the management that no F.I.R. Should be lodged against them with the police in order to save their arrest and that departmental enquiry may be held. During departmental enquiry, five employees including the petitioners, were found guilty. They admitted the commission of offence.
Action had been taken against them with regard to the second incident. Hay. Anwar was not member of the unlawful assembly which had assembled after 08-00 a.m. On 27-8-1998 and had given beating to Basharat Driver. As such, the action against the petitioners was taken on the basis of the misconduct committed by them and not because of any trade union activities of the petitioners. The N.I.R.C. As such has no jurisdiction in the matter and the petitioners could seek remedy before the Labour Court after service of the grievance notice.
6. A perusal of the documents placed on record in the light of the arguments addressed by the counsel of the parties, show that the petitioners alongwith other colleagues collectively gave beating to NLC driver Basharat Ali after dragging him from a nearby hotel. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioners on 20-8-1995. The petitioners admitted the guilt and requested for forgiveness. An enquiry was thereafter held. The Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses and the petitioners participated in that enquiry. He submitted his report on 15-9-1998 wherein he found the petitioners guilty of the charges. Then a final show-cause notice was issued on 18-9-1998. Subsequently, they were dismissed from service on 20-9-1998. It is mentioned in the petition that the petitioners then gave a grievance notice to the respondents on 12-11-1998, whereafter the present petitions were filed in the Commission on 20-11-1998. Prima facie, it appears that the petitioners have been punished on account of misconduct for beating Basharat Ali driver of NLC vehicle, and not because of any Trade Union activities. No case of unfair labour practice is, therefore, made out. There is no document on record to show that the petitioners have been victimised on account of their being members of any trade union. Further, as the petitioners were terminated from service vide order, dated 19-9-1998 and they gave grievance notice on 17-11-1998 and then filed the present petitions on 20-11-1998, they are not likely to suffer any irreparable loss if the impugned order of termination is not suspended at this stage. The balance of convenience also lies in favour of the respondents. The applications of the petitioners under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.0 (P&F) Regulations, 1973 are therefore, rejected.
7. In view of the above observations that no case of unfair labour practice is made out, the main petitions filed by the petitioners under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 are also not maintainable, because prima facie, the punishment awarded to them is based on misconduct and the petitioners have been terminated after holding departmental inquiry. They have already served a grievance notice to the respondents. The N.I.R.C. Has no jurisdiction to entertain the main petitions. The petitions should, therefore, be returned by the office to the petitioners for seeking remedy before the competent forum, if so advised.