1995 PLP 759 (PLC)
MUHAMMAD ILYAS BHATTI Versus ASSOCIATED PRESS OF PAKISTAN through It s Director‑General, Islamabad and another
| Citation | 1995 PLP 759 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Gohar Yaqoob Yousaf Zai, Member |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ILYAS BHATTI Versus ASSOCIATED PRESS OF PAKISTAN through It s Director‑General, Islamabad and another |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 759 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1995 PLP 759 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Gohar Yaqoob Yousaf Zai, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 759 (PLC) (MUHAMMAD ILYAS BHATTI Versus ASSOCIATED PRESS OF PAKISTAN through It s Director‑General, Islamabad and another). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Hafeez Amjad for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Bashir Kayani for Respondents,
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 1995
- 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Abdul Hafeez Amjad, Advocate and the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Muhammad Bashir Kiayani and have also considered the documents filed on record with their help.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 22‑A(8)(g)‑‑‑Termination of service‑‑‑Jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission‑‑‑Services of employee were terminated earlier in consequence of allegations of misconduct, but he was re‑instated on the condition that he would withdraw all cases filed by him against employer‑‑ Employee after re‑instatement in service complied with condition of withdrawal of cases and remained performing his duties peacefully, but later on his services were again terminated without giving any reasons for such termination‑‑‑Employee though was successful in establishing a very strong case in his favour but his petition before the Commission (which had limited jurisdiction to deal with cases of unfair labour practice) was not maintainable as employee who was Secretary of Trade Union could not prove that his services were terminated due to his trade union activities.
Judgment & Decree
He should submit his acceptance immediately and report for duty to the Acting Bureau Chief, APP, Islamabad for further deployment as soon as possible, but not later than 18‑4‑1995. With the issuance of this Office Order, the APP's order of even number dated 10‑3‑1993 stands superseded. (Sd.) (ASLAM SHEIKH), DIRECTOR‑GENERAL."
5. After re‑instatement in service the petitioner complied with the condition of withdrawal of the cases and accordingly on 22‑3‑1995 he was allowed by the Punjab Appellate Tribunal, Lahore vide order dated 22‑3‑1995 to withdraw the petition/appeal which was pending against the order of the 'Punjab Labour Court No. 6, dated 17‑1‑1994. Thereafter, when the petitioner was peacefully performing his duties, his services were terminated vide order dated 7‑6‑1995. It would be convenient to reproduce the contents of the same as under:‑‑ "The Office Order of even number dated March 19, 1995 is hereby withdrawn. This has the approval of the competent Authority. (Sd.) (Bashir Ahmed Chohan), Manager (Adorn. and Personnel)."
6. This order, on the face of it neither can be termed as legal one nor otherwise it contains any reason for the dismissal of the service of the petitioner. The petitioner rather stands cheated by the respondent, as he was asked to withdraw the appeal pending before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on the pretext that his services will be re‑instated and when he had withdrawn his petition from the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide order, dated 22‑3‑1995, the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated. Although the petitioner is successful in establishing a very strong case in his favour but I feel sorry to observe; that while exercising limited powers under the provision of section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969, this Commission has to see that whether any act of unfair labour practice has been committed with the petitioner and in this connection, the trade union activities of the petitioner would have played a positive role but on the contrary there is nothing on record to show as to whether such acts/orders have been passed by the respondents on account of his lawful trade union activities or otherwise. The petitioner has failed to show any role as a trade union activities, giving rise to the passing of the order dated 7‑6‑1995 against the order of dismissal/termination dated 7‑6‑1995, the petitioner may have remedies before the other forum but so far as this forum is concerned it has got limited jurisdiction i.e. to deal with the cases of unfair labour practice as narrated above.
7. As result of the above discussion I have got no other option but to declare the petition as not maintainable before this Commission and therefore, I do not feel the need to go into further discussion about the merits of the case or the status of the petitioner as a workmen etc. because the same may otherwise affect the remedy of the petitioner, if any, before other competent forum. The petition is dismissed without any orders as to costs. H.B.T./232/NIRC Petition dismissed.