2020 PLP 245 (PLC)

MIAN SHAKIRULLAH JAN, CHAIRMAN.

This is an appeal under section 12 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 with the prayer to call the record of Case No. 7A (207)/2017, examine the same and to pass appropriate order/ remanding the matter to learned RTU for decision afresh.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the learned RTU has passed the impugned order dated 16-07-2018 without hearing the counsel for the appellant/complainant; thus, he has been condemned unheard. He further contended that the learned RTU neither decided the allegations nor examined the record on file and directed the management to deduct the union fund from the members as per constitution of the union and not otherwise and if any extra amount was deducted the same shall be refunded from the union funds to the members. He argued that the prayer clause specifically read that a complaint be lodged against the respondents with the Commission (NIRC) under section 5(b) but the learned RTU has left the said part of prayer unattended and passed the impugned order on the basis of a prayer that was a typographical mistake. He submitted that this is a fit case to be remanded back to the learned RTU for decision afresh as the impugned order is liable to be set aside being against the facts and law.

3. The other side vigorously opposed the contentions of the appellant and supported the impugned order. The representative for the respondents challenged the maintainability of the instant appeal and argued that the appellant is the general secretary of the opponent union and he has no concern with the internal matters of the respondents' union; thus, he holds no locus standi to file an appeal under section 12 of IRA, 2012.

4. I have given anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the available record with their able assistance.

5. Before dilating upon the merits of the case, I would like to discuss the issue of maintainability of the instant appeal. A right to prefer appeal against the order/decision etc. of the RTU is provided under section 12 of IRA, 2012 that is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: "

12. Appeal against the order/decision etc. of the Registrar. - A trade union, its members or an officer may prefer an appeal against the order, decision and proceedings conducted by the Registrar within thirty days before the Commission." The perusal of supra provision shows that a remedy of appeal is available to a trade union, its members and an officer against the order of the Registrar before the Commission. The appellant is admittedly an officer of a registered trade union namely All Pakistan Worker' Union (TF). Being an office bearer of a registered trade union, the appellant has a remedy to prefer an appeal under section 12 of IRA, 2012 against the order passed by the RTU; thus, the instant appeal is maintainable having been filed competently. Reliance in this respect can be placed on a judgement of the Hon'ble Lahore High Court, Lahore in an I.C.A. No.579/2013 titled LESCO Employees Pegham Union v. National Industrial Relations Commission and others.

6. The bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the complainant (appellant) was present in person and his counsel was not available; the learned RTU has not given any decisive finding regarding the allegation levelled against the officers of the Telecom Foundation Employees Union. The learned RTU should have decided the assertions of the complainant on either way after hearing the parties; thus, it would be in the fitness of things that the instant appeal be accepted and the case be remanded back for decision afresh.

7. In view of the above discussion, the instant appeal is accepted; the impugned order dated 16-07-2018 is set aside and the case is remanded back to the learned RTU for decision afresh after providing an apt opportunity of hearing to both sides. ZC/9/NIRC Case remanded.