1988 PLP 26 (PLC)

Bharat Iron Works v. Daghubhai A I R 1976 S C 98 rel. Ch. Riaz Ahmed for Petitioner. S. Amanullah Khan Niazi for Respondents The petitioner entered service as Assistant Lineman, WAPDA, Ichhra Sub‑Division, Lahore. In due course, he was promoted as Lineman Grade‑II and was pasted at Khuddian Sub‑Division, District Kasur. Subsequently, the services of the petitioner were placed under suspension in terms of Rule 5(i) of the Pakistan WAPDA Employees (E & D) Rules, 1978 due to misconduct. The suspension order was made on 23‑2‑1987. A show‑cause notice was also served on the petitioner, which the petitioner is stated to have refused to accept.

2. The aforesaid suspension order dated 23‑2‑1987, being not acceptable to the petitioner, the petitioner on 17‑5‑1987 filed the present petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against Superintending Engineer Electricity, WAPDA, Lahore and Executive Engineer Electricity WAPDA Kasur, respondents challenging the suspension order mainly on the ground that the petitioner had been taking keen interest in the trade union activities during his service and for this reason alone he was being victimized by the respondents.

3. S. Amanullah Khan Niazi, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the respondents, at the very outset, raised a preliminary objection, regarding jurisdiction of the Commission to hear the present petition and contended that WAPDA employees have been declared to be in service of Pakistan and deemed to be civil servants for the purpose of the Service Tribunals Act, 1979 as is provided under section 17(i) (b) of the WA PD A Act, 1958 (as amended). It was urged that the Federal Services Tribunal alone had jurisdiction in the matter. The submission of the learned counsel is substantial. I find myself in agreement with the learned counsel and hold that the Commission has no jurisdiction to hear the present petition in terms of section 17(i)(b) of the WA PDA Act, 1958 (as amended in 1975) which reads:‑ 170B) Service under the Authority is hereby declared to be Service of Pakistan and every person holding a post under the Authority, not being a person who is on deputation to the authority from any province, shall be deemed to be a civil servant for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act."

4. Ch. Riaz Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the suspension of the petitioner was the result of victimization of the petitioner at the hands of the respondents and thus, the respondents were liable to be punished for committing unfair labour practice. The submission of the learned counsel is without force. There is nothing on the file to indicate that the suspension of the petitioner was motivated on account of his participation in the trade union activities. No instance of unfair labour practice has been cited and no case for committing unfair labour practice against the respondents is discernible because he has no office in the union. The allegation of unfair labour practice, as observed by the superior Courts, is a serious allegation and has to be substantiated by the facts. The following observation was made by the Indian Supreme Court in a case titled Bharat Iron Works v. Daghubhai A I R 1976 SC 98:‑ "A word of caution is necessary. Victimisation is a serious charge by an employee against an employer, and therefore, must be properly and adequately pleaded giving all particulars upon which the charge is ‑based to enable the employer to fully meet them. The charge must not be vague or indefinite being as it is an amalgam of facts as well as inferences and attitudes. The fact that there is a union espousing the cause of the employees in legitimate trade union activity and an employee is a member or active office‑bearer there, is, per se no crucial instance .... "

5. As stated above, the suspension of the petitioner, cannot be said to be an act of unfair labour practice under the relevant provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Even if it is admitted that the respondents have suspended the petitioner in order to remove him from service even in that case, the petitioner is required to show that the respondents had done so, for the reasons that the petitioner is, or proposes to become or seek to persuade any other person to become a member or officer of a trade union or participating in the promotion, formation or activities of trade unions. There being nothing on the file to substantiate the accusation of unfair labour practice, the respondents cannot be blamed for having committed' unfair labour practice. .

6. In view of what has gone above, it follows that the petitioner has miserably failed to establish a case of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents and his petition is liable to dismissal. Resultantly, the petition fails which is hereby dismissed. The status quo maintained on 17‑5‑1987, is vacated. A. A. /121/I.R.C Petition dismissed.