2001 PLP 450 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑Preamble, Ss. 15; 16, 22‑A(8)(g) & 25‑A‑‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.2‑A‑‑‑Jurisdiction of National. Industrial Relations Commission‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.was a special legislation providing its own remedies‑‑‑ Remedy before National Industrial Relations Commission under S.22‑A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was an independent and additional remedy for dealing with case of dismissal or otherwise victimization on account of trade union activities of worker‑‑‑Authority provided to National Industrial Relations Commission through different provisions of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not available with any Court or Tribunal of country‑‑‑A person could be a civil servant and a workman, but when his case would attract provisions of Ss. 15 & 16 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for his trade union activities remedy lay with National Industrial Relations Commission‑‑ insertion of S.2‑A in Service Tribunals Act, 1973, would not affect or oust jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission to adjudicate on cause of action of workers/civil servants based upon allegation of unfair labour practice as jurisdiction of Service Tribunal did not extend to matter relating to trade unions dealt with by Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. 1999 P L C 57 ref. (c) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 22‑A(8)(g)‑‑‑Jurisdiction of National .Industrial Relations Commission‑‑‑A line would have, to be drawn in each case in the light of facts and circumstances of each case while exercising jurisdiction by National Industrial Relations Commission under S.22‑A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑‑‑Where it was established in the light of facts and circumstances that a worker (may be a civil servant) was being discriminated or victimized on account of trade union activities, National Industrial Relations Commission had exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon case of concerned workers‑ and to provide relief as provided under law. Sheikh Abdul Hameed for Petitioner. Abdul Sadiq Chaudhary, Counsel for Respondents. The petitioner tiled this' petition‑ under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 against the impugned .order of termination dated 14‑4‑1997. Reply was filed by the respondents and affidavit‑in‑evidence was also filed by the parties. The learned counsel for the respondents moved an application on the point of jurisdiction with the contention that after the insertion of section 2‑A in the Services Tribunal Act of 1973 the remedy for the petitioner lies with the Federal Services Tribunal and the jurisdiction of this commission is ousted in view of the amendment in the Services Tribunal Act of 1973. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the respondents, categorically raised the objection that the case of the petitioner is not based upon the specific allegation of unfair labour practice. Hence the jurisdiction of this commission is only restricted upto the extent of entertaining the matters of the workers based upon the clear acts of unfair labour practice on' the part of the employers.

2. On 17‑2‑1999 1 have heard the arguments of both the parties at length on the preliminary point of jurisdiction and on the objection of the learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the instant case with the bench of this commission in view of the insertion of section 2‑A of the Services Tribunal Act of 1973, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that after the amendment in the Services Tribunal Act of 1973 the petitioner filed an Appeal bearing No.984(L) of 1997 before the Federal Services Tribunal against his termination order which was disposed of by the Federal Services Tribunal on 8‑1‑1998 for lack of jurisdiction with the contention that against the cause of action, prior to the amendment in the Services Tribunal Act, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal cannot be attracted. At this stage, the learned counsel for the respondents pointed out that later on the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan had already held that the amendment in the Services Tribunal Act of 1973 has the effect of retrospective and the petitioner still can invoke the jurisdiction of Federal Service Tribunal for his relief arid the petition is not maintainable before the bench of this commission for want of jurisdiction.

3. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsels for both the parties and have also gone through the pleadings of the parties in the instant case with my deep considerations. Obviously in the instant case, the petitioner has failed to make out prima facie arguable case of unfair labour practice. The pleading of the petitioner is based upon a general and sweeping allegation of unfair labour practice without specifying the detailed events and circumstances which could lead to commission of an act of unfair labour practice as provided under section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Admittedly under section 22‑B(3)(‑a) this bench of the commission can exercise powers of a labour Court while entertaining the petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the Industrial. Relations Ordinance, 1969 but elements of unfair labour. practice are necessary elements for exercising of such powers but I regret to observe that nothing has been brought on record by the petitioner to establish an act of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer establishment within the meaning of section 15 of the Industrial Relations. Ordinance, 1969. National Industrial Relations Commission under Industrial Relations Ordinance; 1969 as a Labour Court can entertain a petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 only when there are certain and specific allegations of unfair labour practice otherwise in case of lack of ingredients of unfair labour practice, the remedy for the workers may lie somewhere else.

4. I find no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that after the insertion of section 2‑A in the Services Tribunal Act, 1973 the jurisdiction entrusted upon this Commission by the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has become ousted and the titled petition is not maintainable on the sole ground of the insertion of, section 2‑A in the Services Tribunal Act, 1973. The Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is a special legislation providing its own remedies and remedy before the National Industrial. Relations Commission under section 22‑A(8((g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is an independent and additional remedy for dealing with the case of dismissal or otherwise victimization on account of trade union activities of the worker and the authority provided to this Commission through different provisions of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by the legislation is not at all available with any Court or Tribunal of the country and a person may be a civil servant and a workman at the same time as and when the case of the aggrieved civil servant/workman shall attract the provisions of section 15 or 16 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for his trade union activities the remedy lies with the Bench of this Commission otherwise somewhere else and it has already been decided by the Full Bench of this Commission vide reported judgment placed in 1999 PLC 57 that despite the insertion of section 2‑A in the Federal Services Tribunal Act of 1973, the jurisdiction of this Commission provided under Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 shall remain intact and the insertion of section 2‑A with the Services Tribunal Act does not affect or oust the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Relations Commission to adjudicate upon the cause of action of the workers/civil servant based upon the allegation of unfair labour practice as the jurisdiction of Services Tribunal does not extend to matters relating to trade unions dealt with by the Industrial Relations Ordinance. A line shall have to be drawn in each case in the light of facts and circumstances of each case while exercising the jurisdiction by this Commission under section 22‑A(8((g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and where it is established in the light of facts and circumstances that a worker (may be a civil servant) is being discriminated or victimized on account of trade union activities, this Bench of the Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the cause of the concerned workers and to provide the relief as provided under law. The upshot of the above discussion is that since prima facie in the instant petition, the petitioner could not make out a good arguable case of unfair labour practice and has failed to substantiate the specific facts, circumstances, substance and events of unfair labour practice for attracting the exclusive jurisdiction of this Bench of the Commission under section 22‑A(8)(g) read with section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, hence this Bench is no more inclined to adjudicate upon the matter in hand and the .petition is dismissed being not maintainable. The petitioner may avail the remedy lie somewhere other else and can seek exclusion of delay of time which he spent in this Court Bench on the principle contained in section 14 of the Limitation Act which may be considered sympathetically by the competent Court of jurisdiction. The parties shall bear their own cost: The file be consigned to record after completion of necessary formalities. H.B.T./334/N.I.R.C. Petition dismissed.