2026 PLP 100 (PLC)

ABDUL GHANI MENGAL, MEMBER.

Through this petition, the petitioners have prayed for the following relief:‑ "In view of above it is accordingly respectfully prayed:‑ i). To declare the changing of commercial procedure into feeder wise in illegal and unfair labour practice. And violation of the company SOPs. ii). To declare taking the duty from the employees on national Holiday i.e. Saturday is illegal and unfair labour practice. iii). To interference in the administrative matter by the Union is unfair labour practice. iv). To declare the letter dated 28-10-2025, 31-10-2025 and 03-11-2025 are unfair labour practice and may be set aside, in the interest of justice equity and fair play.

2. The petitioners have invoked Section 31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, alleging that the respondents have committed gross unfair labour practices by unilaterally scrapping the decades-old binding "Commercial Procedure" (last duty roster issued on 10-10-2025) and imposing, through office orders dated 28-10-2025, 31-10-2025 and 03-11-2025, an entirely new feeder-wise duty system at the behest of a retired outsider, Mr. Haji Ramzan, and with the active connivance of the Hydro Union; that the impugned orders illegally transfer the responsibility of line losses, recovery, MCOs and anti-theft campaign from the Billing Section to line staff, discriminatorily allot high-loss feeders to non-favoured employees while granting low/zero-loss feeders to union sympathizers, compel performance of duty and threaten disciplinary action on national holidays (Saturdays), and constitute unlawful interference by third parties in administrative matters, rendering the said orders arbitrary, mala fide and in blatant violation of QESCO's SOPs, the applicants' settled terms and conditions of service, and the provisions of Sections 17 and 18 read with the Third Schedule of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012; wherefore the applicants pray that the impugned orders be declared illegal and set aside, and the respondents be directed to restore the Commercial Procedure in its entirety.

3. In response to the petition, notices were issued to respondents to which they filed para-wise comments. The respondents contend that petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed in limine for want of locus standi of the petitioners, non-disclosure of the specific sub-clause of Section 31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 under which the petition is filed, absence of any allegation or proof of unfair labour practice or violation of any guaranteed right, lack of jurisdiction of this Commission to adjudicate individual grievances or interfere in purely administrative/managerial prerogatives such as assignment of duties and internal working arrangements, pendency of the jurisdictional status of QESCO before the Hon'ble High Court, misjoinder and non-joinder of necessary parties including Haji Muhammad Ramzan, and the settled position of law that distribution companies fall outside the trans-provincial jurisdiction of NIRC as held in 2021 PLC 148 (SC) and by the Full Bench NIRC; reliance is placed on 1992 SCMR 36, 2006 SCMR 404 and 2014 PLC

56. On merits, the respondents contended that the assignment of duties is purely an administrative matter within the exclusive domain and prerogative of the management, no policy has been violated, and the petitioners are duty-bound to obey lawful orders; lastly the respondents have prayed for dismissal of petition.

4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsels for the parties at length. The Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the unilateral scrapping of the decades-old "Commercial Procedure" (last roster issued on 10-10-2025) and imposition of a completely new "feeder-wise duty system" through office orders dated 28-10-2025, 31-10-2025 and 03-11-2025 amounts to gross unfair labour practice under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012. He submitted that the new system has been introduced at the dictation of a retired outsider, Mr. Haji Muhammad Ramzan, and with the active connivance of the Hydro Union, which is clear third-party interference in administrative matters. He further contended that the new arrangement illegally transfers the responsibility of billing, recovery, MCOs and line losses from the Billing Section to line staff, which is a fundamental alteration in the petitioners' terms and conditions of service. Learned counsel argued that high-loss feeders have been deliberately allotted to non-favoured employees while low/zero-loss feeders have been given to union sympathizers, which is patent discrimination and victimization. It was also urged that compelling employees to perform duty on Saturdays (national holidays) and threatening disciplinary action for non-compliance.

5. To the contrary the Learned counsel for the respondents while rebutting the arguments of learned counsel for petitioners, at the outset, raised serious preliminary objections as to the very maintainability of the petition. He argued that the petitioners have no locus standi; that they have failed to specify the exact sub-clause of Section 31 under which the petition is filed; and that no unfair labour practice within the meaning of the said provision has even been alleged, far less proved. He placed heavy reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as 1992 SCMR 36, 2006 SCMR 404, 2014 PLC 56 and 2021 PLC 148 (SC) and contended that assignment of duties, preparation of rosters, transfers, postings and internal administrative arrangements are purely managerial functions in which this Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere unless malice or victimization on account of trade union activity is proved with concrete evidence, which is completely lacking in the present case. He further submitted that the change to a feeder-wise system is a bona fide administrative measure aimed at improving recovery and reducing line losses, which is in larger public interest. The so-called "Commercial Procedure" was never a statutory rule or part of any settlement under the IRA, 2012; it was merely an internal working arrangement that the management is competent to revise at any time. Regarding the allegation of involvement of Mr. Haji Muhammad Ramzan, learned counsel stated that even if a retired officer gave any suggestion, it does not make the decision illegal. As regards duty on holidays, he submitted that QESCO is an essential service and the management is fully empowered to require employees to attend emergency or anti-theft duties on any day, including holidays, subject to payment of overtime or compensatory leave. Lastly, learned Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition with costs.

6. It is settled law that the jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 31 of the IRA, 2012 is limited to redressing "unfair labour practices" as defined in the Act. The expression "unfair labour practice" is a term of art and cannot be invoked merely because employees are aggrieved by a managerial decision. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that: "Assignment of duties, preparation of duty rosters, transfers, postings and internal administrative arrangements are purely managerial prerogatives and do not constitute unfair labour practice unless they are proved to be actuated by malice, victimization or made with the object of punishing workers for trade union activities."

7. In the instant case, the petitioners have failed to bring their grievance within any specific entry of the Act. The change from an old commercial procedure to a feeder-wise system is admittedly aimed at improving recovery, reducing line losses and curbing power theft objectives that are in public interest and fall squarely within the legitimate administrative domain of the employer. No material has been placed on record to even prima facie establish that the new system has been introduced to victimize the petitioners on account of their trade union membership or activities.

8. The allegation of involvement of a retired outsider (Mr. Haji Muhammad Ramzan) or "connivance" of the Hydro Union remains unsubstantiated and hearsay. Even if a retired officer or a CBA office-bearer gave suggestions, it does not convert a lawful administrative decision into an unfair labour practice. The petitioners' grievance that high-loss feeders have been allotted to non-favoured employees is essentially an allegation of discriminatory treatment. However, no individual petitioner has come forward with specific evidence that he has been singled out for adverse treatment because of his non-affiliation with the CBA or due to trade union rivalry. General and vague allegations of discrimination do not satisfy the threshold required to invoke Section 31.

9. The further grievance that employees are now being asked to work on Saturdays (national holidays) is also misconceived. It is an admitted position that QESCO is an essential service providing continuous electricity supply. The West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and the Electricity Act, 1910 recognize the right of the employer to require employees to perform emergency or essential duties even on declared holidays, subject to payment of overtime or compensatory leave. The impugned orders do not mandate routine duty on every Saturday; they only require presence in case of emergency or for anti-theft operations. Such directions are lawful and cannot be termed unfair labour practice.

10. Even if the preliminary objections are ignored and the case is examined on merits, the petitioners have failed to prove any violation of settled terms and conditions of service. The so-called "Commercial Procedure" was never a statutory service rule or part of any settlement of the IRA, 2012; it was an internal working arrangement that the management was competent to revise in larger public interest. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that efficiency-driven administrative changes cannot be challenged as unfair labour practice. The petitioners have also failed to point out violation of any specific clause of QESCO's SOPs. Mere assertion that SOPs have been violated is not enough.

11. In view of the foregoing, I hold that the petition is not maintainable under Section 31 of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, as no unfair labour practice within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 has been made out. Consequently, the petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit. However, to remove genuine apprehension of the workers and to maintain industrial peace, it is directed that: (i) The respondent, QESCO, shall not require any employee to perform routine duties on a declared public holiday, national holiday, or Saturday (where such Saturday is officially declared a holiday), except in cases of genuine emergency or essential anti-theft operations. In all instances where employees are required to perform duties on such holidays, QESCO shall pay them overtime allowance/compensation or other benefits for the extra duties, calculated on an hourly or daily basis, in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations. (ii) A clear written policy in this regard shall be circulated to all employees through by the respondents through their respective offices (Chief Engineers and Executive Engineers) within 30 days and a copy be placed on record of this Commission. There is no order as to costs. File after completion and compilation be consigned to record. Given under my hand and seal of the Commission on this 19th November, 2025. MQ/2/NIRC Petition dismissed.