2001 PLP 117 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss.l(3)(a) & 22‑A(8)(g)‑‑‑Resignation‑‑‑Allegation of unfair labour practice by employer‑‑‑Employee had alleged that because of his trade union activities employer had obtained thumb‑impression on application for premature retirement and his resignation was obtained by employer by playing fraud on him which amounted to unfair labour practice on the part of employer‑‑‑Employee could not prove that his resignation was obtained by playing fraud on him while the employer had fully proved that employee had voluntarily resigned‑‑‑Petition by employee otherwise was not maintainable as he was working on special railway lines relating to Defence Services‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 being not applicable to the case of employee, his petition was liable to be dismissed. Ch. Riaz Ahmad for Petitioner. The petitioner who was employed in Pakistan Railways as a Mate has filed this petition under section 22‑A. (8) (g) of I.R.O., 1969 alleging various acts of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent Officer (Assistant Engineer No. 1 Pakistan Railways, D.S. Office Lahore) and praying therein that "the respondent may kindly be directed not to commit any further unfair labour practice and to allow the petitioner to perform his duty and set aside the so‑called resignation".

2. Case of the petitioner as set out in this petition is that he was an active member and Secretary of Pakistan Railways SAMPARAS Union and was the supporter of Preme Union (CBA) on account of which he had to face victimization and hardship. Precise allegation made by the petitioner is that because of his trade union activities, respondent has obtained his thumb impression on an application for pre‑mature retirement a month before filing of this petition which "has not even been accepted but the petitioner is being restrained from performing his duty". According to the petitioner, "the resignation is a fraud being played on the petitioner".

3. The respondent has submitted parawise comments denying the allegations made by the petitioner. His contention is that the petitioner has voluntarily retired from service with effect from 14‑2‑2000. In support of his contention, an attested copy of the petitioner's application for pre‑mature retirement bearing his thumb‑impression is appended with the parawise comments. It is further stated by the respondent in his comments that the petitioner's request for pre‑mature retirement has been duly sanctioned/accepted by the competent Authority. It is pointed out by the respondent in his comments that the petitioner "had disturbed the track endangering the safety by dismantling and re‑construction of bridge No.583 at Km 271 / 13‑14 on Pakpattan‑Kasur Section illegally and without any authority and disciplinary action was initiated against him". Yet another plea taken by the respondent in the parawise comments is that there is complete ban on trade union activities in Pakistan Railways "Open line due to declaration of MOD". Reliance in this behalf is placed on a Notification dated 18‑10‑1993 issued by the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) whereby 20 railway lines specified in the Notification, "being essential to the defence services of Pakistan, during peace and war were classified as MOD Lines". Having classified the specified lines as MOD (Ministry of Defence) Lines, it has been further notified. by the Federal Government that by virtue of provisions of clause (a) of subsection (3) of section 1 of I.R.O., 1969, the said Ordinance is not applicable to any railway employee employed in connection with the MOD Lines or any installation connected therewith or incidental thereto including installations such as Sheds, Washing Lines, Sick Lines etc. The railway employees have accordingly been advised by this Notification "not to take part in any trade union activities" and they have been further warned that if they take part in any trade union activities, they will be liable to all legal and disciplinary actions as provided under the Law and Statutory Rules.

4. The departmental representative appearing for the respondent has pointed out that the petitioner at the relevant time was posted on Pakpattan Kasur railway line which is one of the MOD Lines mentioned at serial No. 14 of the Notification which fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner nor has he denied that the said line was specified as MOD Lines in the aforementioned Notification. In the circumstances, as pointed out in the Notification itself, the Industrial Relations Ordinance, by virtue of its provisions contained in clause (a) of subsection (3) of section 1 was not applicable to the petitioner who admittedly was employed in connected with the MOD Lines. That being so, that petitioner could not legitimately claim to have taken part ‑in any lawful trade union activities and as such he cannot be heard to say that it was because of his lawful trade union activities that the respondent manoeuvred his removal from service by obtaining his thumb‑impression on the application for pre‑mature retirement nor could the, petitioner invoke any provisions of I.R.O. for agitating his grievance. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this petition is not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./28/NIRC Petition dismissed.