1998 PLP 357 (PLC)

MUHAMMAD ZAMAN QURESHI (CHAIRMAN).

We propose to dispose of the above-titled appeal by this order, which has been filed by the National Bank of Pakistan challenging the decision dated 21-10-1996 recorded by Agha Salim Khurshid, the then Member, National Industrial Relations Commission, whereby the petition filed by Mumtaz Hussain Zafar, respondent herein, was allowed in terms of the prayer made in the petition.

2. Brief facts, as stated by the respondent/petitioner in the petition are that he joined service as a Clerk through order dated 4-5-1978 and was subsequently promoted in Clerical Scale No. 6 from Scale No. 4 on 23-12-1982. He was neither given any duty nor paid salary on account of his lawful trade union activities. Threats were extended to him by the management to discard the trade union activities which amounted to unfair labour practice. Prayer made was that the respondents/appellants be directed to allow the duty and salary to the petitioner/respondent.

3. Appellants submitted reply in which several objections were raised to the maintainability of the petition. It was specifically stated that the petitioner was removed from service for unauthorised absence vide order dated 28-1-1984. The parties adduced evidence through affidavits. The Single Bench accepted the petition vide impugned order which has been assailed through the instant appeal.

4. Several notices were sent to the respondent to appear and contest the appeal but he failed to appear and as such the appeal was heard ex parte.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that the respondent, who was working as a clerk, was terminated on 7-2-1984 for unauthorised absence, as it was reported that he had gone abroad. He filed a petition before the Commission on 9-6-1996 after about twelve years of his removal, which was highly belated. No application for condonation of delay was also filed alongwith the petition. The Single Bench of the Commission wrongly assumed the jurisdiction and condoned the delay without recording sufficient cause. It was next argued that no evidence was recorded. No case of unfair labour practice was made out or established and, therefore, the Commission had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. He also submitted that the appellants had filed affidavit in evidence of his witness but the learned Member wrongly observed in the impugned order that no affidavit was submitted by the appellants. It was further added by the learned counsel that the case was fixed for 9-9-1996 and the impugned order was announced on 21-10-1996 but no intimation was given to the appellants. Lastly, he added that the termination order had attained finality and the respondent was not a workman when he filed a petition before the Commission.

6. We have perused the record and gone through the impugned order in the light of the arguments addressed by the counsel for the appellants and find that affidavit in evidence of Sheikh Muhammad Ahmad, Senior Vice President/General Manager, Coordination and Business, Development Wing, Multan, had been submitted wherein it was deposed that the letters sent to the respondent were returned undelivered with the report that the addressee had gone abroad to Saudi Arabia. The appellants also placed on record photocopies of various letters, as well as, charge-sheet which were sent to the respondent on his known address through registered post, which were returned undelivered with the report that the respondent had left the country and gone to Saudi Arabia and consequently, he was removed from service through order dated 28-1-1984. The respondent filed a petition in the Commission on 9-6-1996 after a lapse of more than twelve years without mentioning the reasons as to why he approached the Commission after such a long time. The Single Bench also did not give any reasons in the impugned order for condoning the delay. The petition filed by the respondent was highly belated and the impugned order on this score alone is not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is also noticed that no document was placed on record to show that the respondent was member of any trade union or in what capacity he had been participating in the trade union activities which annoyed the management resulting into his removal from service. No case of unfair labour practice was, therefore, made out. The Single Bench, therefore; wrongly assumed the jurisdiction without determining that important aspect. It is also noticed that the respondent failed to challenge the removal order dated 28-1-1984 in any competent forum or even through a petition before this Commission. He also failed to mention any specific date from which he was not allowed duty or salary.

7. For the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to accept the appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 21-10-1996 and dismiss the petition with no order as to costs. H.B.T./302/N.I.R.C. Appeal allowed.