1987 PLP 349 (PLC)

3. It appears that in another case before the Punjab Labour Court No.l Lahore, filed by 69 workers, to which the respondents were admittedly not party and which concluded on 22‑1‑1979, the following directions were made: ‑ (i) The existing staff (as existing on 16‑10‑1974) of Checkers, Inspectors and Chief Inspectors shall be re‑designated as Ticket Examiner, Senior Ticket Examiner and Assistant Traffic Manager (Checking) with effect from 16‑10‑1974. (ii) All the persons directly recruited for the posts of Ticket Examiners, Senior Ticket Examiners and Assistant Traffic Manager (Checking) shall be retrenched and the employer may adjust them against the vacant posts of Conductors and Junior Clerks if possible. (iii) All the Booking Clerks, Junior Clerks, Duty Clerks, Time Checkers, Statement Checkers and Fuel Clerks, who were promoted as Ticket Examiners in the order dated 16‑10‑1974 shall be reverted to their substantive posts: Of course, they would be entitled to be promoted in their own clerical line. (v) All the posts falling vacant shall be filled in accordance with the policy of promotion laid down in the Settlement of 1969 read with West Pakistan Road Transport Board Staff Promotion Rules, 1959." The decision of Labour Court No.l was upheld by the Labour Appellate Tribunal as also the High Court, whereupon, the Management issued an order on 3‑6‑1986, an extract from which is reproduced below:‑ In implementation of the orders of the Punjab Labour Court No.l Lahore, dated 22nd January, 1978, upheld by the learned Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal, Lahore, vide its judgment, dated 23rd December, 1981 and maintained by the Hon'ble Lahore High Court vide judgment, dated 30th November, 1985 reported in 1986 P L C 348 the under‑mentioned individuals who were promoted/taken from the categories other than Checkers/Inspectors to the posts of Ticket Examiners/ Senior Ticket Examiners in violation of the settlement in 1969, are hereby reverted to the posts noted against each with immediate effect. The names of the respondents figure at serial Nos. 16, 17, 18 and

19. They, thereupon, moved this Commission as aforesaid.

4. The plea of the respondents was that on their promotion as Ticket Examiners in 1976, they had become active in the Union affairs whereupon, the Management had intended to revert them which had led to the filing of their application before the Labour Court No.2, Lahore, that in 1980 also an attempt had been made to get rid of them under the garb of reorganization for which they had to move the Labour Court once again and had succeeded there on 31‑1‑1981 and that although the case decided by Labour Court No.l on 22‑1‑1979, as aforesaid, concerned Lahore workers whereas, the respondents were all along working at Rawalpindi and although even otherwise, it, had no applicability to the respondents who were not party thereto, they have once again been reverted as a campaign to crush all unions in P.R.T.C. The learned Senior Member who disposed of both the petitions by one and the same impugned order came to the view that the decision of the Punjab Labour Court No. 1, dated 22‑1‑1979 concerned the staff who had been promoted as Ticket Examiners by that Court's order, dated 16‑10‑1974, that the case of respondents was entirely different from those Ticket Examiners as they (respondents) had been promoted in implementation of decision of Labour Court No.2. He, therefore, cancelled the order of reversion of the respondents. Hence, this appeal.

5. The main attack on the impugned order was of absence of a finding of an unfair act on the part of Management. It was urged that in the view of the Management the order of Labour Court No.l, dated 22‑1‑1979 was of general application and covered the cases of Ticket Examiners including the respondents and that even if the view be erroneous that per se would not constitute an unfair act within the meaning of section 15 of the I. R. O., 1969. It was maintained that the order of Punjab Labour Court No.l has been implemented in respect of all Ticket Examiners and that the respondents cannot be said to have been discriminated against. It was further urged that the assertion of unfair labour practice had been only oral, that although the same had been denied by the Management in the written statement, no evidence had been led and that, therefore, in the absence of proof on a question of fact, the fact cannot be taken as established. We need not go into the question of correctness or otherwise of the Management's interpretation of the order of Labour Court No. 1, dated 22‑1‑1979 as regards its applicability to the respondents, because even if the Management were applying the order to the respondents by a wrong interpretation of that order, the wrong interpretation cannot by itself be said to constitute an unfair act unless the specific ingredients of section 15 were also established. The respondents' petition, no doubt, does mention that Abdul Razzaque was Vice‑President of G.T.S. Workers Union, Rawalpindi, Muhammad Shakoor was Organizing Secretary of West Pakistan Road Transport Workers Union, Rawalpindi, while the other respondents were active members of their Unions, but no material has been brought to establish clearly that the order of Labour Court No. 1 was being applied to them deliberately in order to curb their trade union activity or to discriminate against them. The respondents had on their own decided not to produce any evidence in the petition and although the Management had also done the same, the respondents cannot thereby shirk the onus cast on them by law to prove their case of unfair act. Their assertions in their respective petitions in this regard had been denied by the Management who had asserted in the petition of Abdul Razzaque and others that no victimization on grounds of trade union has been made and in the petition of Muhammad Shakoor that 'no action has been taken, on grounds of trade union activities of the petitioner'. In the absence of specific evidence, as to facts constituting unfair act and of a finding by the Single Bench in that regard, all we are left with is that the implementation of the decision of Labour Court No.l must by itself be taken to constitute an unfair act. This, in the circumstances of this case, we are unable to do. It may be open to the respondents to challenge before a proper forum the view taken by the Management as regards the applicability of the order _f Labour Court No.l to the respondents but certainly they have not made out a case of unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.

6. On this view of the matter, the appeals of the Management succeed and the same are allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 30‑7‑1986 is set aside. M.Y.H./88/Lb Appeals accepted.