Find a Lawyer

Case No. 24(319) of 1984, decided on 31st January, 1985.

---Ss. 15 & 53--National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulation, 1973 Regln. 32(2)--Stay order--Complainant facing enquiry for misconduct--Complaint making no prima facie case against employer--Stay order, in circumstances, recalled.

Ch. Sadiq Muhammad Warraich and Muhammad Saleem Rehan representative for Applicant.

K.M. Pasha for Respondents.

This petition under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 alongwith a complaint, of unfair labour practice had been filed by Muhammad lqbal Khan against Ehsanullah Khan, Managing Director, Millat Tractors Limited, Sheikhupura Road, Lahore and two others. I have already dismissed the complaint vide my order, dated 20th January, 1985. However, for the disposal of this petition, the facts narrated in the complaint are essential to be stated.

2. The facts alleged in the complaint are that the complainant an office-bearer of the Workers Union was Chairman of the Canteen Committee of the union, while Zaid Akhter respondent No. 2 was incharge of the canteen responsible for making the purchases for the canteen. The complainant had earned his displeasure for having been critical of purchases of substandard items for the canteen. Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 were alleged to be opposed to lawful trade union activities of the complainant.

3. Respondent No. 2 served a charge-sheet on the complainant on 28-10-1984 for misconduct in order to pressurise him into silence so that he did not object to the purchase of substandard edible items for the canteen. In fact a message to that effect was also conveyed to him. When .he refused, an inquiry was held against him. On 4-12-1984 at about 1-30 p.m. when the complainant was taking his meals in the canteen, respondents Nos. 1 and 3 came there for checking. Karamat Ali and Rukhsar Ahmed workers were also taking their meals. The complainant complained about substandard mutton being supplied and purchased at comparative higher rates. The respondents asked him not to poke his nose in those affairs. When he asserted that he was the Chairman of the Canteen Committee respondent No. 2 (who had joined them in the meanwhile) threatened that he should not forget that he was under enquiry and could be dismissed at any time.

4. The complainant was nominated as a candidate for the office of Propaganda Secretary on 18-12-1984 for union's elections to be held on the 3rd January, 1985. On this respondent No. 1 conveyed his displeasure. Respondent No. 2 called him in his office on 20-12-1984 at 3-00 p.m. and asked him in the presence of witnesses to withdraw his name from the contest. The complainant tried to explain. Respondent threatened to dismiss him in the inquiry. On the next working day viz. the 23rd December, 1984 he received the second show-cause notice from respondent No. 1. Even after the second show-cause notice the respondents had conveyed that the disciplinary proceedings could be closed if he withdrew from the contest. The disciplinary proceedings were thus being used for bargaining. It was prayed that the accused had committed unfair labour practice and they be dealt with according to law.

5. Arguing, Saleem Rehan representative for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had not stated that on 4-12-1984, respondents Nos. 1 and 3 had come on routine checking in the canteen. He said respondent No. 3 had nothing to do with the checking of canteen premises. He said that petitioner had not said that respondent No. 3 had come. He said that it was an error of typing. However, the fact that respondents Nos. 1 and 3 had visited the canteen had been mentioned not only in the complaint but also in the statement under section 200, Cr.P.C recorded by me. There was thus no force in that assertion.

6. He asserted that a meeting of the union had been held much before 4-12-1984. In that meeting various decisions were taken regarding the candidature and conduct of elections of the union. These decisions having been leaked out to the management they were bent upon victimising the petitioner due to his trade union activities. Petitioner was pointed out inconsistency between his version in the domestic inquiry and in the complaint. In the domestic inquiry he had stated that the respondents had turned against him as he used to point out defects regarding the standard of manufacture of tractors while in the complaint he had stated that he used to complain about supply of substandard mutton to the canteen at comparatively higher price, he said that that was no contradiction and that he had been speaking both about the (low) standard of manufacture of tractors as well as poor quality of mutton to the canteen at comparatively higher prices

7. The counsel for the respondents stated that a perusal of Annexure A/1 would show that Faiz Muhammad Khan, Assistant Manager made a report of the incident of 24-10-1984 to the General Manager, Marketing on 25-10-1984. The General Manager, Marketing marked the report to General Manager (Administration) on 28-10-1984. General Manager, Administration issued a show-cause notice to Shamim Ahmed on 28-10-1984 vide Annexure R/2. On the same day, as Annexure 'A' filed by the complainant would show, he was issued the show-cause notice. Thus he asserted that it is a false allegation that the inquiry was initiated on a complaint written by the Enquiry Officer himself on which Shamim Ahmed affixed his signature.

8. He said that in his complaint as well as the statement under section 200, Cr.P.C. he has alleged that on 4-12-1984 while he was taking his meals respondents Nos. 1 and 3 came for a checking where he complained to them about the substandard quality of mutton supplied and its comparatively higher prices. On that respondent No. 3 asked him not -to poke his nose into that affair. The facts verified from Annexure R/15 and R/15-A showed that respondent No. 1 was on sick leave during those days. Annexure R/11 showed that both respondents Nos. 1 and 3 had been invited to attend the function for Export Distributors Award on 4-12-1984 in England. In that function respondent No. 1 was to attend and respondent No. 3 had expressed his inability to do so. Respondent No. 1 having been taken ill was not in a position to attend. Respondent No. 3, therefore, intimated that he would be arriving in London on 2-12-1984. Exh. R/14 being the photo copy of his passport showed that he left Pakistan on 2-12-1984 and returned on 10-12-1984. Annexure R/13 showed that respondent No. 3 received the Massey Ferguson Presidents Trophy for outstanding achievement on 4-12-1984, in England. Thus, that part of his statement on oath was a lie.

9. He said that in his reply to show-cause notice the petitioner had stated' that he used to criticise about the low standard of (manufacture) of tractors and some persons had enmity against him. This was R/5 to the written statement. On the other hand in his complaint he had said that he had been objecting to the purchase of certain substandard items for the canteen and earned the displeasure of respondent No. 2 on that account. He said that this assertion was incorrect.

10. He said that the election programme of the union showed that nomination papers had to be filed on 18-12-1984 and the names of those held eligible to participate in the election were to be announced on 24-12-1984. Thus before 24-12-1984, no one knew as to who would be the candidate. Therefore, there was no question of victimizing the petitioner being summoned and asked to withdraw his candidature by respondent No. 2 on 20-12-1984. Further, it has been stated that this was done before Muhammad Afzal, the Senior Vice-President, which is ridiculous. Again out of a panel of some 10 persons it is intended to be believed that it was only the petitioner, who had filed papers for the post of Propaganda Secretary, who was singled out for being asked to withdraw his nomination papers by the employers.

11. These are substantial lacunae. In my opinion, no prima facie case has been made out against the respondents. 1, therefore, dismisses this petition and re call the stay order.

A.E.

Stay vacated.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.