2003 PLP 344 (PLC)

3. The petition alongwith application under Regulation 32(2) of N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations 1973 was placed before the then learned Member Mr. Abdul Sattar Khan on 22-5-2000, who after hearing the representative of the petitioners, directed the respondents to file written statement and reply to the stay application and also maintain status quo.

4. It may be submitted that on request of the representative of the petitioners that since the impugned notice/order dated 6-5-2000 with regard to Miss. Shazia Saleemi (petitioner No.5) has been withdrawn by the respondent-management as such he is not pressing the instant petition up to the extent of petitioner No.5, the then learned Member vide his order dated 28-6-2000 dismissed the petition being impressed to the extent of Miss. Shazia Saleemi (petitioners No.5).

5. The respondent, while filing their written statement and reply to the stay application have resisted and vehemently opposed the petition by raising inter alia certain preliminary legal objections as to the jurisdiction and maintainability of the petition including the objection that all the employees of the Printing Corporation of Pakistan are Civil Servants as laid down under section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, therefore this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. On merits the respondents also controverted the allegations made by the petitioners.

6. In their written statement, the respondents have contended that the impugned orders dated 5-5-2000 and 6-5-2000 were issued in compliance with the decision dated 19-12-1999 of the National Security Council/Cabinet notified vide Cabinet Division U.O. No.2/2/2000-Adnm-I dated 17-1-2000. Therefore issuance of the impugned orders were not the result of victimization as alleged by the petitioners, accordingly the allegations are not covered by the provisions of Section 15 of I.R.O, 1969. They have vehemently denied the allegations of Unfair Practice.

7. Both the parties adduced their evidence through affidavits in evidence. Petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 have filed their affidavits in evidence. The petitioners in their affidavits in evidence have reproduced the contents of their petition. It is contended in para. 4 of their affidavits that the deponents have continuous service of 4 to 6 years in the respondents establishment but since they are active members of the union, the respondents therefore persuaded the deponents to quit their lawful and legitimate trade union activities and also their membership, but when they refused to do so, the respondents have started their victimization. It is further asserted that the petitioner No.5 (Miss. Shazia Saleemi), who was also issued a similar notice of termination of service, has since been reinstated in service and therefore she withdrew her case.

8. All the petitioners were cross-examined by learned Counsel for the respondents. In their cross-examination they have admitted that when they were employed in P.C.P., they were given appointment letters and as per condition in the said appointment letters, they had to serve in accordance with the Corporation Service Rules.

9. On behalf of the respondents, one Abdul Qayyum Butt Deputy Secretary (Admn.) of the respondent-establishment has filed his affidavit in evidence. He was cross-examined by the representative of the petitioners. In his cross-examination he stated that:-- "It is incorrect to suggest that rules mentioned/quoted in the termination notices are against the Service Rules of P.C.P. the petitioners are permanent employees and their service record is good". "It is incorrect to suggest that the petitioners are victimised due to their trade union activities". "The petitioners are still in service due to stay issued by this Commission, final notices of termination have not yet been issued". "It is correct that the petitioners were recruited/employed by the Chairman of the Corporation, Syed Khurshid Shah. Voluntarily states that they were employed on political ground".

10. Arguments were heard. Representative of the petitioners has reiterated the petitioners stand taken in their petition. While justifying filing of the instant petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 before the Commission on the ground of unfair labour practice, representative of the petitioners contended that the impugned termination notices were issued due to trade union activities of the petitioners. He further contended that the petitioners have all the requisite qualifications and were appointed on merit and not on political grounds. In support of his contention he placed reliance on the following Judgments:-- 1996 SCMR 413; 1999 SCMR 1009 and 1999 PLC

57. He further contended that while accepting the appeal of Shazia Saleemi (Petitioner No.5), the respondent's management approved withdrawal of her termination order dated 6-5-2000 vide Latter No. Admn 15(4)/94-PCP/3059 dated 24-6-2000 of the respondents-Corporation. He further contended that para. 15 of the "Agreement" executed on 4-6-1983 between the petitioner's union and the respondent management provide that in matters of direct recruitment real sons, daughters, brothers and sisters of employees of the Corporation shall be given preference subject to fulfillment of conditions of eligibility/qualifications. Keeping in view the provisions of the said para. the petitioners (whose real brother/father are employed in the respondent Corporation) were appointed by the Chairman of the respondents Corporation. Therefore, now the respondents cannot be allowed to take benefit of their so-called lapses if any, in order to terminate the services of the petitioners.

11. On the other hand learned Counsel for respondents has not only denied the allegations of unfair labour practice but also contended that the impugned notices/orders have been issued in compliance with the decision of National Security Council/Cabinet dated 29-12-1999, notified vide Cabinet Division U.O. No.2/2/2000 Admn-I dated 17-1-2000. In rebuttal the petitioners have failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the said decision of NSC/Cabinet, which is binding upon the respondents Corporation, being a Government owned Corporation. A perusal of the impugned notices/orders would show, that the said notices/orders were issued in compliance with the decision of National Security Council/Cabinet dated 29-12-1999. It has been, therefore, rightly, contended on behalf of the respondents that in the instant case the basic issue against which the petitioners feels aggrieved is the notices of termination of their services of which were virtually issued in compliance with the decision and order of the Federal Government on the ground that the petitioners were employed on political ground in violation of the procedure as laid down under PCP Employees Service Rules 1977, therefore this Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere into the matter, because jurisdiction of this Commission is restricted and limited to the cases based on allegation of unfair labour practice.

12. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and their respective versions and also examined the record of the case minutely and have come to the conclusion that the petitioners have miserably failed to make out a case of unfair labour practice. Firstly the petitioners have not cited any specific instance of lawful trade union activities which would annoy the respondents to such an extent that they would go out of the way to victimise the petitioners. Mere allegation that the petitioners are active members of the union and were persuaded by the respondents to quit their lawful trade union activities and also their membership of the union and when they refused to do so, they were victimised by the respondents, does not prove the case of the petitioners particularly when they failed to mention the same of the person who pressurized them or to quote any specific instance of lawful trade union activities. Mere wild and bald allegation of unfair labour practice are not sufficient to prove, victimization and make amenable for interference by the commission because no exact date and time when the respondents had given hem threats has been mentioned. It appears that these allegations have peen made with a view to bring their case within the purview of section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969.

13. Arguments were also heard on the objection raised by the respondents regarding maintainability of the petition and jurisdiction of the commission. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that this Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the case of the petitioners in view of insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. He further contended that the respondent-establishment is run, managed and controlled by the Federal Government, hence the Federal Service Tribunal has the exclusive jurisdiction to try such cases. On the other hand representative of the petitioner has contended that aim of the main petition is to prevent commission of the acts of unfair labour practice and the Federal Services Tribunal has no power to prevent Commission of unfair labour practice which functions have been specifically assigned to this Commission under Section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969. The relevant para. of section 22 A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 is reproduced below:- "Section 22-A(8)(g) .... to take in such manner as may be prescribed by regulations under section 22-F measures calculated to prevent an employer or workmen from committing an unfair labour practice". He further contended that notwithstanding the insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the jurisdiction of N.I.R.C. remains intact under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O, 1969 and, therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction by the N.I.R.C. is valid. Agreeing with the contention of the representative of the petitioners, I hold that Section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973 is not applicable to the facts of this case as already held by the Full Bench of this Commission.

14. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the Representative of the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents regarding allegations of unfair labour practice, I could not bring myself to agree with the petitioners that their case is based on allegations of unfair labour practice. I find that the petitioners failed in proving that on account of their trade union activities the impugned notices/orders were issued by way of unfair labour practice as defined under section 15 of I.R.O., 1969. They have failed to quote any specific instance of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents, but have repeated their allegations of being victimised due to trade union activities. Mere wild and bald allegation of unfair labour practice are not sufficient to prove victimization and make amenable for interference by the Commission. In the circumstances, the relief prayed for by the petitioners cannot be granted. According to law as laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Iftikhar Ahmed PLD 1988 SC 53 followed in 1991 PLC 876, 1988 PLC 923, 1988 PLC 419 and 1994 PLC 31, this Commission has jurisdiction to interfere only if a case falls within the ambit of section 15 of I.R.O., 1969 and nothing beyond that. This provisions of law provides redress of grievance as arising out of victimization on account of trade union activities only. No other victimization even if proved is actionable by this Commission in exercise of jurisdiction cited by section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969. Needless to observe that the impugned notices/orders were issued by the respondents-Corporation under the directions/instructions of the Federal Government, therefore the petitioners could not be allowed to frustrate f the lawful orders of the respondents by simply alleging that the impugned notices/orders have been issued on account of their trade union activities.

15. Apart from what -has been stated above, it may be mentioned here that during his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents has quite frankly submitted that on an appeal filed by Miss. Shazia Saleemi (Petitioner No.5 in this case), the Competent Authority ordered to withdraw her termination, order/notice dated 6-5-2000, therefore the petitioners having right of appeal, may also approach to the Competent Authority for redress of their grievances as laid down under the rules.

16. Upshot of the above discussion is that viewed from whatever angle, the petitioners fails in proving unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents. I, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that this Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with this petition which is hereby dismissed. The stay order dated 22-10-2000 is recalled. However the petitioners if so desire may approach to the Competent Authority for redress of their grievances who may consider the same sympathetically in accordance with rules on the subject. Parties are directed to bear their own costs. File be consigned to record. H.B.T./70/N.I.R.C. Petition dismissed.