' This is an application for stay filed by Mr. Nishat Warsi learned advocate for the petitioner union supported by affidavit of Saeed Khanzada General Secretary of the union to restrain the respondents and persons acting on their behalf and their agents from removing, dismissing or discharging the office bearers active members and general workers during the pendency of charter of demand, and also to restrain the respondents their officers or persons acting on their behalf from with-holding the benefits available under the previous settlement. Counter affidavit was filed by Mr. Ghulain Khawaja, General Manager. Affidavit in rejoinder was filed by the General Secretary of the petitioner union.
2. I have heard arguments of Mr. Nishat Warsi, learned Advocate for the petitioner union and Mr. Faisal Mehmood Ghani learned Advocate for the respondents.
3. Mr. Nishat Warsi, learned advocate for the petitioner union has contended that the petitioner union is a CBA in the respondent No,1 establishment. Senlernent between petitioner CBA union and respondent management expired on 30-6-2001. Thereafter petitioner CBA Union and respondent No,1 establishment served their respective charter of demands. It is contended that the respondent did not allow the General Secretary of the petitioner union CBA to participate in bilateral negotiations. It is contended that the respondent management has withdrawn facilities, which are already being availed of by the workers. The respondent's management also has called 40 persons from Punjab to appoint as workers in place of workers, who are already working by terminating their services. It is contended that the workers have been threatened to be removed from service and without assigning any reason in writing some of the workers have been stopped to work and have also been asked to vacate residential ,quarters. It is contended that the respondent management has been committing the acts of unfair labour practice, so as to pressurize the office bearers of the petitioner union to accept demands of their choice. It is contended that the respondent management also has served, charged-sheets on 20 workers for holding gate meeting on 4-7-2001 at 4-00 p.m. Some of the charge-sheets have been filed with the petitioner by the petitioner union and others have been filed by the respondents with their reply. It is contended that the management of respondent No,1 also has filed inquiry proceedings with the reply, which will show that nothing substantial has been proved against the workers who have been charge sheeted. It is contended that the workers, who have been charge-sheeted also have been put under suspension and their suspension continues beyond 28 days, which is against law. It contended that the suspension of the workers who have been charge-sheeted beyond 28 days is to compel the office bearers of the union to accept demands of respondent No,1 management. It is contended that the petitioner union is CBA, as such can spouse cause of individual workers. Since charge-sheets have been issued to 20 workers and inquiry also has been held against them as such there is an apprehension that they may be terminated from service and other office bearers and members of the petitioner union also have apprehension, as such the petitioner has prima facie case the this respondent is likely to commit act of unfair labour practice, as such interim order, dated 18-7-2001 passed by the Bench of the Commission be confirmed.
4. Mr. Faisal Mehmood Ghani, learned advocate for the respondents has contended that General Secretary of the petitioner union is not in actual employment of the respondent No,
1. His services have been terminated and he has taken his full and final settlement. He has contended that management of respondent No,1 establishment had asked the office bearers of the petitioner union that whoever were in employment shall attend the meeting, which is to be held in Factory Premises. However, General Secretary of the petitioner union has been attending meeting before the Conciliator and the management has never objected. He has contended that during crushing season, the respondent No,1 carries out work of maintenance and the timings of the factory are from 8-00 a.m. To 4-00 P.M. From Monday to Saturday except Friday, on which the time is from 8- 00 a.m. To 1-00 p.m. It is contended that on 4-7-2001 at about 4-00 p.m. The office bearers and members of the petitioner union, including the workers, who have been charge-sheeted, had assembled un-lawfully inside the Factory Gate in definance of the lawful orders of the respondent company and they had formed an unlawful assembly and held a gate meeting, raised slogans against the management of respondent No,1 establishment to presurise them to accept their charter of demand. They committed acts subversive of discipline amounting to misconduct, as such they were charge-sheeted. He has contended that inquiry has been conducted against the workers, who have been charge-sheeted and the same has been filed alongwith reply. It is right of the employer respondent No,1 to hold disciplinary proceedings on act of misconduct against the workers and to take disciplinary action if the misconduct is proved, which cannot be curbed. It is contended that inquiry has been held and now it is for the respondent No,1 management to see whether misconduct is proved or not. In case it is proved as to what punishment may be awarded.
It is contended that initiating disciplinary proceedings is not an act of unfair labour practice. He has contended that even office bearers cannot be given licence to commit any act of misconduct.
Exercise of legal rights by respondent No,1 management cannot be said as unfair labour practice.
He has contended that in case any action is taken against the workers, who have been charge- sheeted as a result of disciplinary proceedings, they have a forum of labour Court. It is contended that violation of settlement or its non-implementation itself is not an act of unfair labour practice.
Any irregularity, if any allegedly committed in holding the inquiry also does not fall within the ambit of unfair labour practice amenable to jurisdiction of Commission. It is contended that there are general and Vague allegations and no specific instance of unfair labour practice has been mentioned in the petition, as such petitioner's case does not fall within the ambit of unfair labour practice. Next it is contended that by an interim order, dated 18-7-2001, the respondent management has been restrained from taking any action against the office (sic), by the management of respondent No,1 and inquiry proceedings have also been placed on record by the respondents with reply. In case there is any irregularity in the inquiry, it will not by itself constitute an act of unfair labour practice. To conduct disciplinary proceedings on act of misconduct against the deliquent workers, may be an office bearers of CBA Union, is right , of respondent No,1 which cannot be curbed or taken away merely on general and vague allegations of unfair labour practice, and surmises and conjectures. By now it is settled that even an office bearer is not immune from disciplinary proceedings on account of misconduct. Even otherwise when there are no any specific instance of unfair labour practice spelt out from the record, no any interim order for the workers, who have been charge-sheeted, can be passed what to say an order of general restraint against the respondents to exercise their right to take disciplinary action against the deliquent workers, even may be an office bearer of the union for the act of misconduct. So far from the documents placed on record there appears. Nothing to show that the respondent has issued the charge-sheets to the workers as an act of victimization on account of their lawful trade union activities. The charge-sheets appears to have been issued to them for definance of the lawful orders of the respondents and to have formed an unlawful assembly and holding gate meetings inside the factory on 4-7-2001 at about 1-00 p.m., for which inquiry has been held by the respondents against them and they have participated in the inquiry. There appears no reason to curb the right of respondent No,1 employer to pass the orders on the disciplinary proceedings held against the workers.
5. For the afore-said reasons, I am of the view that the petitioner union has not been able to make out a prime facie case of unfair labour practice likely to be committed by respondents, as such the application for stay is rejected and ad-interim order, dated 18-7-2001 is recalled.
Stay application rejected..