1995 PLP 754 (PLC)

Abdul Hafeez Amjad for Petitioner. Anis Jillani for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th June, 1995. This is a petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 wherein the petitioner contended that he is an employee of the Establishment of Life Line Private Limited. He is also a member of the Peoples Labour Union Life Line, which is a registered trade union and is also the Collective Bargaining Agent of the Establishment. It was further contended that the petitioner union submitted a charter of demand to the respondent which was not accepted, negotiation were going on between the parties while the respondent started victimisation of the members of the petitioner union. It was contended that the services of the petitioner was terminated as a result of victimisation on account of lawful trade union activities of the petitioner.

2. The petition was strongly contested by the respondent by way of filing of written statement and rejoinder to stay application wherein certain legal preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised.

3. I have heard the learned counsel i.e. Mr. Abdul Hafeez‑Amjad, Advocate for the petitioner and Anis Jillani, Advocate for respondent and have also considered the documents available on record with their help.

4. The main objection as to the maintainability of the petition is that the petitioner's services were terminated by way of order dated 31‑12‑1991 on the basis of retrenchment in the establishment of Life Line Private Limited on the principle of "last come first go" basis and alongwith the petitioner 125 other employees of the respondent‑establishment were also retrenched from service, Anyhow it has not been disputed that the services of the petitioner were terminated as a result of retrenchment in establishment of Life Line Private Limited alongwith the services of 125 other employees of the establishment. The provision of section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969 does not cover retrenchment of the employees as an act of unfair labour practice and therefore the jurisdiction of this Commission under provision of section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O. 1969 cannot be extended to the cases of retrenchment in an establishment Beside, although it has not been disputed by the respondent that the petitioner is a member of the Peoples Labour Union Life Line Private Limited but there is nothing on record to establish any further trade union activities on the part of the petitioner in order to establish that the respondent was annoyed with such lawful trade union activities and therefore the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of the other employees who have been retrenched by the game order. In this connection, l would like to quote another judgment passed by this Commission in the same case i.e. retrenchment of the employees from the respondent‑establishment, dated 30‑3‑1993 in Case No.4A(2)/92 and Case No. 4A(4)/92 wherein this Commission has observed that the allegation of unfair labour practice against the respondent was not correct and the petitioner in that case, alongwith the other employees, were retrenched lawfully by the respondent‑establishment.

5. As a result of the above discussion I have reached to the conclusion that the services of the petitioner were terminated by way of retrenchment and not through unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969 and therefore, this Commission has got no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon and I have concluded as such, I do not feel the need to go into further discussion about the merits of the case. The petition therefore, is dismissed without any order as to cost. H.B.T./234/NIRC Petition dismissed.