1994 PLP 747 (PLC)

(4) Whether the petitioner has got no locus standi? (5) Whether the allegations levelled in the main petition are correct and do they constitute any unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents? (6) Relief. The parties declined to produce oral evidence and relied on the documentary evidence on the file. My findings on the issues are as under: -- Issues Nos.l. 2 and 5 All these issues being interconnected are decided together. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Ch. Riaz Ahmad, Advocate attempted to argue that the petitioner had been championing the cause of the union from the platform of the Pakistan WAPDA Labour Union on account of which he incurred displeasure of the Authority which ultimately resulted in issuance of office order, dated 22-10-1992. He also accused the opposite union of having a hand in the affair. On the contrary Mr. Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Authority assailed jurisdiction of the Commission and maintained that the petitioner was issued office order, dated 22-10-1992 for a valid reason and that it involved no element of unfair labour practice. The main question requiring determination would be how far the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case of unfair labour practice and whether this commission has got jurisdiction to entertain the petition. In the instant case, I find that the petitioner got employment on the basis of the affidavit (Annexure R-1) furnished by him to the effect that no other brother of the petitioner was in the service of WAPDA, however, after appointment it was pointed out by the Zonal Chief Pakistan WAPDA, Hydro -Electric Central Labour Union vide his letter dated 5-10-1992 that one Muhammad Idrees, real brother of the petitioner, was already working in Jahanian Sub-Division as LM-II and that the affidavit of the petitioner was false. Having been apprised of the fact, the petitioner was required to appear before respondent No.l and explain the position but he refused to do so for reasons not far to seek. The conduct of the petitioner is highly deplorable and no indulgence can be shown to him in the matter of stay. The petitioner has concealed material facts and he has come to the Court with unclean hands. It needs no reiteration that the injunction is a form of equitable relief and it is to be issued in aid of equity to a person who comes to Court with clean hands. Injunction is declined to a person who comes to Court with mala fide intention in order. to deceive the Court. A person found acting in an unfair or inequitable manner, is not entitled to any relief. PLD 1968 Kar. 840, PLD 1970 BJ 50 and 1987 M L D 1959 and

657. Adverting to the allegations of unfair labour practice levelled by the petitioner against the respondent Authority I find that in whole of the petition there is no such an assertion as to what are those trade union activities of the petitioner which have led the respondent Authority to commit the alleged unfair labour practice and go to the extent of dispensing with the services of the petitioner. Absolutely no detail of any trade union activities carried on by the petitioner is given. A vague and general statement that the petitioner is being subjected to victimization or is likely to be victimized for his union affairs without any detail whatever of those trade union activities which led to the issuance of the office order in question, is not sufficient to make out unfair labour practice. The Commission is only concerned whether an unfair labour practice has been committed or not. Apart from the assertion that the petitioner is an active unionist like thousand others there is nothing to support his claim of unfair labour practice. 1964 PLC 668, 1961 PLC 502, 1960 PLC 1459 and 1973 PLC

370. It has been rightly submitted on behalf of respondent authority that this Commission's jurisdiction under clause (g) of subsection (8) of section 22-A of the IRO, 1969 is attracted only when a case of unfair labour practice is made out. I have consequently to see if the case falls within the ambit of section 15(1) of the Ordinance. The petitioner, as stated above, has, not been able to establish a prima facie case of unfair labour practice and jurisdiction of the Commission is clearly ousted. According to law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case Iftikhar Ahmad v: President National Bank of Pakistan and another (Civil Appeal No.221 of 1985 and other Appeals) (P L D 1988 SC 53), this Commission has jurisdiction to interfere only if a case falls within the scope of section 15 of the IRO 1969. This provision of law provides redress of grievances arising out of victimization for trade union activities only. No other victimization, even if proved, is actionable by this Commission in exercise of jurisdiction created by section 22 A (8) (g) of the IRO 1969. The following observatians were made in the mentioned ruling: -- "It will, therefore, appear that the cases which the Benches are empowered to hear under the clause must have an element of unfair labour practice in them; it does not encompass cases where an allegation of unfair labour practice is made. It may be mentioned that sections 15 and 16 of the Ordinance set out 'instances of unfair labour practice on the part of the employers as well as workmen. It is, therefore, not right to construe the clause in question as conferring a general jurisdiction upon the Benches to entertain all kinds of grievances petitions even though they may not be relatable to unfair labour practice..." In Arshad Mehmood v. Factory Manager, Gulshan Carpet Industries Ltd. Lahore 1994 P L C 35 it was held by the Commission: -- "The jurisdiction of the Commission is confined to the cases falling under the scope of section 15 of the Ordinance and nothing beyond that. It implies that in cases of victimization for any reason other than the trade union activities this Commission will have no jurisdiction. The allegations made in the petition which appear to be general and sweeping in nature, even if they are permitted to stand do not make a prima facie case of unfair labour practice. The existence of unfair labour practice is prerequisite for proceeding with a case under clause (g) of subsection. (8) of section 22-A of the IRO. This jurisdictional prerequisite is missing in the present case." In view of what has gone above it fallow that the petitioner has miserably failed to establish a prima facie case of unfair labour practice against a the respondents and, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Commission is clearly barred to adjudicate upon the matter. The petitioner, as mentioned above, has furnished a false affidavit and succeeded to get employment on the basis of the said affidavit by deceiving the Selection Committee. On getting inkling of the fraud perpetrated on the department, I feel the respondent Authority had good reason to issue the petitioner office order, dated 22-10-1992 to appear before respondent No.l and explain the position as to why his services should not be' terminated for having filed p false affidavit to get employment from the quota of employees son. M. Idrees is real brother of the petitioner. It cannot be said that the petitioner had no knowledge about it. The petitioner was fully aware at the relevant time that his brother was already working in WAPDA and as such he was not eligible to apply for the post but he concealed this fact from the Selection Committee and manipulated to get employment and subsequently when he was 'asked to explain position he avoided to appear before Respondent No.l and hurriedly approached this Commission by filing the instant petition asserting that the department was hostile to him due to his union activities and that he was subject to victimization at the instigation of the rival union and on account of his refusal to abide by the wishes of the department and disassociate himself from the union affairs. A valid reason has been shown necessitating the respondent Authority to issue office order, dated 22-10-1992 to the petitioner. It involves no element of unfair labour practice and cannot be challenged successfully before this Commission. Both the issues are decided against the petitioner. Issues Nos.2, 3 and

4. For reasons recorded under issues Nos.1 and 5, I find that the petition is not maintainable and the petitioner has got no cause of action to file the petition. The issues are answered in the negative. Relief In view of my findings on the above issues, the petition fails which is hereby dismissed. The stay application also meets the same fate. Stay recalled. H.B.T./212/NIRC Petition dismissed