NIRC V. UBL (Infructuous Petition Dismissed)
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case was heard by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), Karachi Bench, and involved a bank employee, Hussain Bux Mallah, who filed a petition against United Bank Limited under the Industrial Relations Act, 2008. He claimed that during union election proceedings, the bank's management had threatened to victimize him because of his trade union activities.
The bank argued that the petition should be dismissed because, before it was even filed, the petitioner had already been dismissed from his job through an official dismissal order dated 7 October 2009, which he received on 8 October 2009. The petition itself was filed later, on 13 October 2009.
The Commission agreed with the bank. It found that since the petitioner was no longer an employee at the time he filed his case, the Commission could not grant the relief he sought, such as reinstatement, because such power only applies when someone is being punished for unfair labour practices, not when the person has been acquitted of charges. The Commission also noted that the union elections he complained about had already taken place, so there was no ongoing issue left to address.
As a result, the petition was declared infructuous, meaning it no longer served any real purpose, and was dismissed. The case illustrates that legal claims must be based on a live, current grievance, and courts or tribunals will not entertain petitions that have become moot due to intervening events.
یہ مقدمہ نیشنل انڈسٹریل ریلیشنز کمیشن (این آئی آر سی)، کراچی بینچ میں سنا گیا، جس میں ایک بینک ملازم حسین بخش ملاح نے صنعتی تعلقات ایکٹ 2008 کے تحت یونائیٹڈ بینک لمیٹڈ کے خلاف درخواست دائر کی تھی۔ اس کا دعویٰ تھا کہ یونین انتخابات کی کارروائی کے دوران بینک انتظامیہ نے اس کی ٹریڈ یونین سرگرمیوں کی وجہ سے اسے ہراساں کرنے کی دھمکی دی تھی۔
بینک کا موقف تھا کہ درخواست خارج کی جائے کیونکہ یہ دائر ہونے سے پہلے ہی درخواست گزار کو 7 اکتوبر 2009 کے باضابطہ برطرفی کے حکم کے ذریعے ملازمت سے برطرف کیا جا چکا تھا، جس کی اطلاع اسے 8 اکتوبر 2009 کو موصول ہوئی۔ درخواست خود اس کے بعد، یعنی 13 اکتوبر 2009 کو دائر کی گئی تھی۔
کمیشن نے بینک کے موقف سے اتفاق کیا۔ کمیشن نے پایا کہ چونکہ درخواست دائر کرتے وقت درخواست گزار اب ملازم نہیں رہا تھا، اس لیے کمیشن اسے مطلوبہ ریلیف
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
PLJ 2010 Tr.C . (NIRC) 96 [National Industrial Relations Commission Karachi Bench] Present: Bashir Ahmed Memon , Member HUSSAIN BUX MALLAH--Petitioner versus UNITED BANK LIMITED through its Group Executive and 4 others--Respondents Appeal No. 4A (140)/2009-K & 24(204)/2009-K, decided on 31.12.2009 . Industrial Relation Act, 2008 (IV of 2008)-- ----S. 25(8 )( g)--National Industrial Relation Commission (P&F) Regulations, 1973, Regul . 32(2)(1)--No cause of action--Question of maintainability--Services of the petitioner were already terminated before filing of the petition--Petition had become infructuous and was liable to be dismissed--Validity--At the time of filing of the petition, the petitioner was not in employment of the bank and his dismissal had already taken effect--Relief sought by the petitioner could be granted by NIRC in the proceedings because such powers for reinstatement could only be exercised in case of awarding punishment for unfair labour practice and not in case of acquittal of the charge--Petitioner had no any cause of action on the ground of election--Petition had become infructuous and was not maintainable. [Pp. 97 & 98] A & B 1990 PLC 5999 & 1984 PLC 1342, rel . Mr. Mushtaq A. Shaikh , Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. Faisal Mahmood Ghani , Advocate for Respondents. Date of hearing: 31.12.2009. Order The petitioner named above has brought this petition under Section 25(8 )( g) of the IRA, 2008 and alongwith it has filed application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 against the respondents.
2. While admitting the petition notice was issued to the respondents. Respondents entered in appearance through their counsel and field written reply with preliminary Legal objections and counter affidavit.
3. The respondents have asserted that prior to filing of this petition the petitioner was dismissed from service vide his dismissal order dated 07-10-2009, which was received by the petitioner on 08.10.2009, therefore this petition has become infructuous and is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard arguments of both the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the material placed on record.
5. The present petition was filed before this Bench of commission on 13-10-2009. According to respondents the services of the petitioner were already terminated/dismissed before filing of present petition i.e. on 07-10-2009. The respondents have produced the copy of dismissal order of the petitioner which shows that the same was received by the petitioner through courier service and registered post on 08.10.2009 and 09-10-2009 and also received by the petitioner. In this way it is crystal clear that at the time of filing of the present petition, the petitioner was not in the employment of the respondents Bank and his dismissal has already taken effect therefore the, relief sought by the petitioner couldn't be granted by this Bench of Commission in these proceedings because such powers for reinstatement could only be exercised in case of awarding punishment for unfair labour practice and not in case of acquittal of the charges. Reliance is placed on 1990 PLC 599 and 1984 PLC 1342.
6. It will be worth to mention here that the present petition was filed by the petitioner before this Bench of commission on the ground that during the election proceedings of the union, respondents management has threatened for victimization of the petitioner due to his involvement in trade union activities. Admittedly the elections of the union have been held by the Commission, therefore there remains no any cause of action to the petitioner, therefore on this ground also the petition has become infructuous and is not maintainable. In view of above facts and circumstances the petition is not maintainable which according stands. (R.A.) Petition dismissed.