' This appeal tiled by Mehnatkash Labour Union, Al-Noor Sugar Mills Limited is directed against the order dated 18-8-2001 passed by the learned Single Member, Karachi Bench whereby the appellant union's application for the grant of stay was rejected and ad-interim prohibitory order earlier passed on 18-7-2001 was recalled.
2. The appellant-union filed a petition under section 22-A(8((g) read with section 15 of I.R.O. Against Al-noor Sugar Mills Limited and its officers alleging, inter alia, that the General Manager of the Mills had refused to negotiate with the union on its charter of demands and stopped certain benefits/facilities awarded to the workers. It was further alleged in the petition that all the office- beaters of the appellant-union were served with charge-sheets for attending/participating in a meeting held inside the factory premises at 4-00 p.m. And threats were being extended to remove them from service if they did not sign the settlement favourable to the management. All these acts, according to the appellant-Union, constituted unfair labour practice on the part of the management. It was accordingly prayed that the respondents be restrained "from removing, dismissing or discharging the office-bearers, active members and general workers, during the pendency of charter of demands" and withholding the benefits available under the previous settlements, till the disposal of the petition. The appellant's petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O. Was accompanied by an application for stay seeking interim relief in the aforesaid terms.
3. Learned Single Member seized of the case admitted the petition for regular hearing on 18-7-2001 and issued ad-interim prohibitory order restraining the respondents from dismissing, discharging or removing the office-bearers and active members of the petitioner-union and other workers including the office-bearers who were served with the charge-sheets. The respondents were, however, allowed to continue with the inquiry against the charge-sheeted office-bearers but it was directed that no order adverse to their employment shall be passed meanwhile on the basis of the charge-sheets. It appears that the respondents held the necessary enquiry and placed the enquiry proceedings before the learned Member who after hearing the counsel for the parties recalled the ad-interim prohibitory order passed on 18-7-2001 and rejected the stay application of the appellant-union vide the impugned order dated 18-8-2001 holding that admittedly, the respondent management had issued the charge-sheets to about 20 workers, who were involved in assembling unlawfully inside the Factory Gate in defiance of the Company's lawful orders which was alleged to be an act subversive of discipline constituting misconduct. The learned Member noted that from the documents placed on record, it did not appear that the respondents issued the charge-sheets to the workers to victimize them for their trade union activities. It was further noted by the learned Member that no specific instances of unfair labour practice were spelt out from the record. The learned Member held that to conduct disciplinary proceedings for acts of misconduct against the delinquent workers, including the office-bearers of the CBA union was a right of the respondent- management which could not be curbed or taken away merely on general and vague allegations of unfair labour practice. The learned Member took note of the fact that the inquiry had since been held in which the aggrieved workers had duly participated and observed that in case there was any irregularity in the enquiry, that by itself did not constitute an act of unfair labour practice. The learned Member also took the view that in the absence of any specific instances of unfair labour practice, no interim order for the charge-sheeted workers could be passed much less any general order restraining the respondents to exercise their right to take disciplinary action against the delinquent workers. Proceeding on these premises and further holding that the petitioner-union had not been able to make out a prima facie case of unfair labour practice, the learned Member, as aforestated, rejected the stay application of the petitioner and recalled the ad-interim prohibitory order dated 18-7-2001.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has tiled written objections to the maintainability of this appeal. The objections so filed are accompanied by numerous documents annexed therewith. Learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the appellant-union mainly challenged the charge-sheets served on 24 workers including the office-bearers and ad-interim order was also passed by the learned Single Member to restrain the respondents from removing, dismissing or discharging the charge- sheeted workers/officebearers. Learned counsel further submitted that after the ad-interim prohibitory order was recalled, 'and the stay application of the union was rejected vide the impugned order, 16 out of 24 charge-sheeted workers were dismissed on different dates from 18-8- 2001 (the date of the impugned order) to May, 2002 and the remaining 8 workers have been absolved of the charges. According to the learned counsel, 14 dismissed workers have received their dues in full and final settlement of their accounts and other 2 have since tiled the petition under section 25-A of IRO, 1969 before the 7th Labour Court at Sukkur. Learned counsel further added that 92 employees (other than 24 charge-sheeted workers) were also terminated by way of retirement on 29-5-2002 and 40 of them have cleared their dues. In the circumstances, it was contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the interim relief sought by the appellant-union against the apprehended removal/dismissal of charge-sheeted employees and other workers/active members of the union is no more available and as such this appeal has become infructuous. It was argued by the learned counsel that the dismissal/termination of the workers has 'given them fresh cause of action and if they feel aggrieved thereof, they can tile fresh petitions in appropriate forum like their two colleagues who have already approached the Labour Court under section 25-A of IRO, 1969. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-union was unable to controvert the submission made and the objection taken by the learned Counsel for the respondents which appear to have force. Majority of the charge-sheeted workers having been dismissed from service and as many as 92 other employees also having been dismissed/terminated by way of retrenchment, they can neither claim nor can they be granted prohibitory relief in the present appeal. In this view of the matter, we hold that this appeal has become infructious and the same is liable to be dismissed as such. Needless to observe that dismissal/termination of the afore-mentioned workers/members of the appellant-union has given them a fresh cause of action and if aggrieved and so advised, they may challenge the orders of their dismissal/termination in appropriate proceedings.
5. Apart from what has been said above, this appeal even otherwise is liable to be dismissed on merits. Learned Single Member has given good reasons for recalling the interim prohibitory order issued by him earlier. Law is fairly well-settled that it is the legal/inherent right of the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against his employees on charges of misconduct and to take such proceedings to their logical end. That being so, initiation of disciplinary proceedings against an employee would not lead to any presumption of unfair labour practice and as rightly observed by the learned Single Member, in the absence of any specific instances of unfair labour practice, no interim order in favour of the chargesheeted workers could be issued nor could any general order be passed restraining the Respondent/employer from exercising his right to take disciplinary action against the delinquent workers. The learned Membi in our view has rightly held that the appellant union has not been able to rake out any prima facie case of unfair labour practice. It is settled position of law that before granting interim relief, the Court or the Tribunal must satisfy itself whether there exists any prima facie case in favour of the person seeking interim relief, and that it must also examine the concepts of balance of convenience/inconvenience of the parties and the irreparable loss likely to be suffered by the petitioner in case of refusal to grant him interim-relief.
6. On minute examination of the pleadings of the parties and the settled legal position regarding initiation of disciplinary proceedings, we are not quite satisfied for the present that there existed any prima facie case of commission of unfair labour practice in favour of the appellant-union and/or its office-bearers/active members and other workers. Balance of convenience also did not seem to lie in their favour as it is the prerogative of the employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings and take them to their logical conclusion. The affected workers are also not likely to suffer any irreparable loss or injury inconsequence of the recall of the interim prohibitory order in so far as in the event of any final adverse order, it is open to them to assail the same in appropriate proceedings. For all these reasons, we are of the considered view that the learned Single Member rightly recalled the interim prohibitory order and no legitimate exception can be taken to the impugned order passed by him.
6. Upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal is dismissed as having become intructuous as also on merits.