Find a Lawyer

Cases Nos. 24(147) and 4‑A(95) of 1986, decided on 29th May, 1986.

‑‑‑S. 22‑A(8)(g)‑‑National Industrial Relations Commission Procedure and Functions Regulations; 1973, para. 32‑‑Termination of service allegedly on account of trade union activities‑‑Petitioner concealing facts and approaching National Industrial Relations Commission not with clean hands‑‑Interim injunction order having been passed on misrepresentation of facts, held, was infructuous hence vacated.

M.G. Sadullah Mumtaz for Respondent.

Petitioner Muhammad Nafees Conductor P.R.T.C. (latercity), Rawalpindi made an application under section 22(a)(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 against his District Manager alleging that respondent threatened the petitioner on 7‑4‑1986 that if he took part in trade union activities he would be removed from service. He also made an application for interim relief, praying that pending the decision in the main petition, the respondent be directed not to remove/dismiss/terminate his services. This application was granted and the learned Senior Member further asked the respondent to offer his parawise comments and to show cause why the interim order be not confirmed.

2. I have perused the record, including the parawise comments and heard the arguments of both sides. The respondent has specifically denied the allegation of the petitioner and stated that it was a concocted story planned after the petitioner was caught red‑handed indulging in 'subversive' activities. The learned counsel stated that on 7‑4‑1986 the day when the petitioner was allegedly threatened, he made an application for being made permanent (Annexure 'A' to the parawise comments). He did not even state that he was an officer of a trade union or that he was threatened. The learned counsel stated that the real facts were that on 8‑4‑1986 when he was not on duty, the petitioner entered the establishment unauthorisedly at about 21‑45 hours and was caught red‑handed while painting slogans instigating the workers against the imposition of the Punjab Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1958 on the establishment. The security staff were about to hand him over to the police when officers of the PIAM union forcibly rescued him. A copy of the report of the incident, dated the 9‑4‑1986 lodged by the respondent with the District Magistrate, Rawalpindi, dated 9‑4‑1986 was shown alongwith a copy of the Roznamcha of the establishment, dated the 8th April, 1986 and the report of Akhtar Hussain Head Guard, dated the 9th April, 1986. The parawise comments were also sworn to be true in an affidavit by the respondent.

3. Malik Mehraban the learned representative for the petitioner denied that incident of the 8th April, 1986 at all took place. The respondent denies the alleged incident of 7th April, 1986. I am however, inclined not to believe the petitioners version. Neither the petition, nor, during the course of arguments, the petitioner or his learned representative were able to explain why suddenly on the 7th April, 1986, the respondent called the petitioner and asked him to quit his trade union activities. After all the petitioner had not started his trade union activities on the 7th April, 1986. Also it was not shown what exactly were those particular trade union activities, which led to that threat. It was also not stated as to why suddenly after three days of that alleged threat, the petitioner came to entertain such a fear of impending termination of service, that he should have ran to the Commission to arm himself with the impugned ad‑interim prohibitory order. The only plausible explanation is furnished by the respondents version that his services were terminated on 9‑4‑1986, and having come to know that he approached the Commission and secured the ad‑interim order by concealing the fact that his services had already been terminated. If that had been known the Court would not have issued the injunction which was infructuous.

4. I am also inclined to put my faith in the truth of the report made by Akhtar Hussain Head Guard and the contents of the security log book or Roznamcha, made and prepared, respectively in due course of the employers business and carrying a presumption of regularity and authenticity. In that view of the matter the petitioner concealed the material facts.

5. Since the petitioner did not approach this Court with clean hands I am not inclined to confirm the stay order. I, therefore, vacate they stay order already granted and dismiss the stay application.

6. The main petition shall come up for evidence on a date to be fixed by office.

A. E. Stay order 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.