1987 PLP 366 (PLC)

Cases Nos. 4‑A(9)‑K/86 and 24 (8)/86‑K, decided on 6th November, 1986. ‑‑‑S. 22‑A(8)(g)‑‑ National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulation, 1973, Regln. 32 (2) (c)‑‑Compulsory retirement of worker‑‑Allegations of unfair labour practice‑‑Record leading to retirement of worker showing that he was not retired because of unfair labour practice by employer but under instructions of some other Ministry and that his retirement had no connection with his trade union activities‑‑Application of worker under S. 22‑A(8)(g), Industrial Rerations Ordinance, held, was not maintainable, in circumstances. M.L. Shahani for Petitioner. Akhlaque Ahmad for Respondents. This application has been moved by Haji Abdul Wahab Chachar against Head Post Master Sukkur and the Post Master, General Southern Circle, Hyderabad, under section 22‑A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. It is alleged that the applicant is the President of Sukkur Branch of National Organization of Postal Employees which is a registered Trade Union at national level. He is also the Chairman of the Southern Circle of the said Union and Joint Secretary at National Level. On 17‑6‑1986 a Joint Action Committee took a decision to continue demonstrations upto 26th June, 1986 in order to pressurize the management for the acceptance of the demands raised by the union. In pursuance of this decision, the applicant Abdul Wahab Chachar issued a circular informing the workers that the management accepted the demands because of the token strike observed by the union. It is further alleged that due to the active role played by the applicant in the trade union activities and particularly in the agitation of June, 1986, he incurred displeasure of the respondents. The applicant was on leave with effect from 11th August, 1986 upto 20th September, 1986. He again applied for leave on 18th September, 1986 for extension of leave till 30th September, 1986. However, on 20th September, 1986 the applicant received a ‑reply of the leave application in which it was stated that he has been compulsorily retired with effect from 18th September, 1986. The applicant submitted that retirement order has not been served upon him. He further alleged that he has been retired because of his trade union activities. He requested that the order of compulsorily retirement may be set aside. Based on these allegations, an application seeking interim relief was also moved under Regulation 32(2)(c) of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure & Functions) Regulations, 1973.

2. The respondents were directed to produce the relevant papers leading to the retirement of the petitioner. The respondents filed their parawise comments and produced the relevant papers leading to the retirement of the petitioner. The respondents, however, claimed privilege and requested that the records leading to the retirement of the applicant may not be formed part of the record of the case. I have gone through the record leading to the retirement of the applicant and I find that he was not retired because he was indulging in trade union activities. He was retired under the instructions of some other Ministry. Since his A retirement has no connection with his trade union activites, the application based on allegations of unfair labour practice under section 22‑A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is not maintainable. Both the main application as well as the miscellaneous application are,' therefore, rejected. M.Y.H./90/Lb????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Application rejected.