2006 PLP 261 (PLC)

SYED AKHTAR NAQI NAQVI, MEMBER.

The petitioner has filed the petition under section 49(c) of the I.R.O., 2002 in which he has contended that he being a worker of minor nature has been fulfilling his duties and obligations with the best of his efforts and has never deliberately shown any carelessness, but the respondent No.1 in connivance with the respondent No.2, on the basis of absolutely frivolous allegations issued a show-cause notice (Annex-A) to the petitioner dated 16-7-2003 received by the petitioner on 18-7-2003; that the petitioner replied the above said show-cause notice vide Annex-B. It is contended that the allegation against the petitioner was regarding theft of electricity meters and wrong reading of the said meters. The petitioner contended that he is being victimized due to his activities in Pakistan WAPDA Employees Paigham Union as he has been working as Secretary of the said union and due to his trade union activities, the respondents have developed malice against him and are adamant to remove him from service on frivolous allegations and in illegal and unwarranted manner and the respondents want to remove the petitioner from service without holding an inquiry against him, hence this petition. Along with the main petition, the petitioner has also moved an application under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations, 1973 for suspending show-cause notice till the final disposal of the main petition and for restraining the respondents from removing the petitioner from service.

2. The respondents contested both the applications inter alia on the grounds that the same are not maintainable in view of the fact that the petitioner is an employee of WAPDA and under section 17 (1-b) of WAPDA Act, 1958 which was' incorporated in the Wapda Act, 1975 whereby service under the authority was declared to be service of Pakistan and therefore, was to be deemed to be civil servant for the purpose of the Service Tribunal Act, 1973. The jurisdiction of this Commission has also been assailed on the ground of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. It was contended that the petitioner has failed to fulfil the requirements of invoking the jurisdiction of this Commission in terms of section 63 of the I.R.O., 2002 insofar as he has not been able to disclose what specific unfair labour practice has been committed by the employer and what specific benefits, the respondents have accrued or likely to accrue in case some penalty is imposed upon the petitioner if the competent authority does not consider the defence reply of the petitioner appropriate. It was also contended that this Commission has no jurisdiction to settle the disciplinary proceedings against the employees of the respondents under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000. On merits it was contended that show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner after fulfilling all the requirements and ascertaining the facts-and after impounding the bogus meters at the site and that the petition is premature as the defence reply to the show-cause notice is under consideration and no final order has yet been passed. I heard the arguments of both the parties addressed at the bar.

3. It is an admitted position that a show-cause notice had been served upon the petitioner under certain allegations regarding theft of electricity meters and about its misreading. The petitioner has submitted the reply to the show-cause notice but no further action could be taken as the petitioner knocked at the door of this Commission. Irrespective of the question of jurisdiction of this Commission, this is an admitted position that the petitioner did not wait for the respondents' response on his reply to the show-cause notice and got the respondents restrained from any further action by means of an interim stay. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents committed any unfair labour practice. Had it been so some penal action could have been taken against the petitioner but only a show-cause notice was issued to him. The SDO/representative of the respondents has committed before this Commission that the reply to the show-cause notice was not considered due to the stay order issued by this Commission and may be it is found satisfactory and in that case the show-cause notice may be dropped but on the contrary, if it is not found satisfactory, ' an inquiry shall have to be initiated against the petitioner and the latter can raise all those objections and state his defence that he is being victimized by one Hafiz Ishaque against whom the officials of the respondents authority have got registered cases of electricity theft. I fully agree with the contention of the respondents and the learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to rebut this contention that it is a premature grievance petition and the petitioner should have awaited the action of the respondents' authority regarding the show-cause notice. The representative of the respondents has committed that if the reply to the show-cause notice was not found satisfactory no action shall be taken against the petitioner without a regular inquiry.

4. In this view of the matter, there is sufficient force in the objections raised by the respondents and I believe that this 'grievance petition is premature. Let the respondents proceed further on the reply of show-cause notice submitted by the petitioner and when the proper time comes, petitioner may move this forum of course subject to the question of jurisdiction. The stay application and the main grievance petition are disposed in the above terms. File be consigned to the record. H.B.T./118/N.I.R.C. Order accordingly.