Find a Lawyer

Case No. 24(130) of 1985, decided on 5th January, 1986.

(a) National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973‑‑

‑‑‑Regin. 32(2)‑‑No allegation of unfair labour practice in petition‑ Application made by employee for stopping employer from holding departmental enquiry into his misconduct, held, would not fall within jurisdiction of commission‑‑Employer could not be stopped from taking disciplinary action against employees.

(b) National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973‑‑

‑‑‑Regln. 32(2)‑‑vague charge‑sheet‑‑Effect of‑‑National Industrial Relations Commission, held, was not empowered to decide about vagueness or otherwise of charge‑sheet‑‑Even vague charge‑sheet could not amount to unfair labour practice‑‑Petition was not maintainable under Regulation 32(2), National Industrial Relations Commission Regulations, 1973 to stop employer from taking disciplinary action against employee.

Raja A. Rashid for Petitioner.

Muhammad Asadullah Siddiqui and Abdul Hamid Cheema for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 11th November, 1985.

This petition under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure t Functions) Regulations, 1973 has been submitted by Hafeezullah Cheema an employee of Morafco Industries Limited, Faisalabad. The petitioner was' elected as President of the Union in January, 1985 but he had to resign from the office in the month of April, 1985 due to the circumstances allegedly created by the management. He had filed a complaint under section 15 of the I.R.O. before the Commission which is still pending.

2. It has been submitted by the petitioner that he was General Secretary in the Federation and this was not liked by the respondent Management. He had raised an industrial dispute which is still pending before the Labour Court No. 1 at Lahore. According to him he has been served with a charge‑sheet on concocted charges and the allegations are general in nature and no specific instances are mentioned as required by law. He had submitted a reply to the charge‑sheet but an enquiry has been ordered. He had submitted a medical certificate issued by Medical Superintendent, District Headquarters Hospital, Faisalabad and duly recommended by the Company's doctor but this was not accepted by the respondent and they referred the case to their own doctor who is on the penal of the management in order to get the report in their favour.

3. The petitioner submitted that he apprehends fictitious and ex parte enquiry from the respondents because the respondent is annoyed with him and prays that the respondent be restrained from taking any illegal action including termination of his employment on the basis of the charge‑sheet. The petitioner submitted that if he is dismissed from service he will be deprived not only from his legal right to serve as workman but also it will be an interference in the trade union activities amounting to irreparable loss. He also stated that the balance of convenience was in his favour and that the Management could not take any action under section 46 of the 1.R.0., 1969 without prior permission from the Labour Court. It has been prayed that the respondent may be directed not to take disciplinary action against the petitioner including dismissal till the disposal of the main case pending before this Commission.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner I issued an order on 17‑6‑1985 directing the respondent not to take any disciplinary action against the petitioner on the basis of the charge‑sheet, dated 1‑4‑1985. The learned counsel for the respondent however submitted on 26‑6‑1985 that the enquiry against the petitioner has been held up due to the stay order issued by the Commission on 17‑6‑1985. However, I modified the order and directed that the enquiry may be continued by the respondent but final decision should not be communicated unless I have heard the parties. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer as and when required.

5. Arguments of the learned counsel of the parties were heard on 11‑11‑1985. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted preliminary objections saying that the petitioner was charge‑sheeted for misconduct on 1‑4‑1985 and after the service of the charge‑sheet and the receipt of his reply, regular enquiry proceedings were initiated but on one pretext or the other he has been creating hurdles and not joining the proceedings with ulterior motives and mala fide intentions The Commission had no jurisdiction to stop the enquiry proceedings or to restrain the respondent from taking final action in this connection. He also submitted that the petitioner had voluntarily resigned from the President-ship of the Morafco Employees Union and after his resignation, Anis Ahmad has been elected as President and as such the petitioner has ceased to be the representative of the workers/ employees of the Morafco Industries Limited, 'Faisalabad. The petitioner had, therefore, no right, to put any grievance on behalf of the workers of respondent industry. It was stated that the Morafco Employees Union had disaffiliated from the Punjab Vegetable and Oil Mills Workers Federation and now it has been registered as a C.B.A. for the industry The petitioner has no locus standi to approach this honourable Commission for the adjudication of the individual grievances. It has also been stated that the disciplinary action has been completed and the charges have been established and the final action cannot be stopped by the Commission.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner however, argued that on 1‑4‑1985 a charge‑sheet for misconduct was served on the petitioner. The charge‑sheet contained vague allegations and the charges were not specific. This charge‑sheet was issued when the petitioner was President of the Union and no charge‑sheet has been issued previously. He referred to Standing Order 15(4) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1969 which lays down that the charge‑sheet should be served within one month. He stated that this charge‑sheet was not served within one month of the commission of alleged misconduct. The respondent has not given the date on which misconduct has been committed in order to defeat the law and he was also not given any right of reply. Subsequently the respondent pressurised him to leave the union but he is still General Secretary of the Ghee Federation which is still the C.B.A. for the industry. He also pointed out that Mr. Rashid A. Malik, General Secretary of the union was accused in a number of cases filed by the respondent but the cases against him were subsequently withdrawn. He also pointed out as to how the copy of the resignation was procured by the respondent and the letter, dated 8‑5‑1985 addressed by the Registrar of Trade Unions, Faisalabad to the General Secretary Morafco Employees Union came into the hands of the respondent. He stated that the petitioner had submitted registration papers of his union on 27‑7‑1985 and the union was registered on 31‑9‑1985. This union applied for referendum in October, 1985 and the proceedings to hold the referendum were in hand. He also stated that a dispute was also pending before the Labour Court and the petitioner was protected under section 47 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that most of what has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not contained in the application. He stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner has not mentioned the circumstances in which the management forced him to resign from the union as President. He also pointed out that no complaint was made to the Commission or to the Labour Court or R.T.U. about the circumstances. He also did not put up this matter before his Federation as he was the General Secretary for the last 6 years. He stated that a letter was filed before the R.T.U. in which allegations of embazzlement of lacs of rupees were made against the petitioner and he was forced to resign by the members of the union. He also pointed out that if the management had interfered in the election of the union a complaint should have been filed before the appropriate authorities but no such complaint has been filed by the petitioner. He stated that another powerful union has been formed and there is no victimisation against any trade union. He further argued that service of the charge‑sheet was not based on unfair labour practice. He stated that, the charge‑sheet cannot be judged as vague and cannot be corrected and that if there were any irregularities it was for the Court to say that it contains vague allegations and that it was the right of the management, to serve a charge‑sheet for misconduct.

8. I find that the petitioner in his application has nowhere mentioned as to what, unfair labour practice is likely ta' be committed by the respondent. He has also not given any specific instances to show that the management has committed any unfair labour practice when he' was removed from the post of President of the Union. All that he has stated in the petition is that the management has served concocted charge‑sheet, dated 1‑4‑1985 containing false and vague allegations. The Commission cannot stop the respondent from taking disciplinary action against its employees on account of misconduct. The application made by the petitioner in fact amounts to stopping the employer from holding departmental enquiry into his misconduct but that is not covered under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure & Functions) Regulations, 1973 as the employer cannot be stopped from taking disciplinary action against the employees.

9. The petitioner has pointed out; that the charge‑sheet is vague but it is not for the Commission to decide whether a charge‑sheet is vague or not and the service of even vague charge‑sheet does not amount to an act of unfair labour practice and it is for the appropriate Court to decide whether a charge‑sheet was vague or not. If the petitioner is wrongfully dismissed the remedy lies under section 25‑A', of the I.R.O. as special jurisdiction has been conferred for such purposes on Labour Courts and it is the functions of the Labour Court to see whether a fair enquiry was held. I feel that the petitioner's application under Regulation 32(2) is not maintainable and the same is dismissed and the stay order, dated 17‑6‑1985 is recalled.

A.A. Application dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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