1996 PLC 77 (PLP)

Petitioner in person. Nemo for Respondent. Date, of hearing: 17th April, 1995. This is a petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 wherein the petitioner contends that he is an employee of the respondent establishment and was appointed as Operator‑cum‑Salesman on 13‑8‑1993. It was further contended that Airport Staff Telecommunication Foundation Pakistan newly created establishment and there existed Trade Union in the establishment. The petitioner formed trade union in the establishment and was in the process of its registration. The respondent got annoyed with the said formation of a trade union and the petitioner was throughout of tile establishments' employment without any' termination letter/order, even without any notice etc. and therefore, this act constitute unfair labour practice under section 15(d)(ii) of the I.R.O.,1969. Notices were served upon the respondent. The respondent did not contested the petition but have filed written statement dated 4‑4‑1995 wherein stated that the employment contract of the petitioner was expired on 25th February, 1995 and was not renewed. The respondent did not contest other allegations made in the petition. . Although this Commission could convenient have passed a final order on the basis of the said written statement but in the interest of justice the petitioner was directed to produce evidence in support of his case. The petitioner has produced the affidavit of two of his witnesses and his own affidavit alongwith appointment/service and card while the respondent was proceeded ex parte on 12‑4‑1995. I have gone through statement of the witnesses and of the petitioner. The statements sufficiently establishes the case of the petitioner. Besides, there is no evidence in rebuttal. Even the contract, if any, has not been filed on record, by the respondent. The only reply of the respondent is that the contract of employment expired on 25‑2‑1995, therefore, I would also like to observe here that basically there is no distinction between an ordinary workman and workman on contract under the definition provided by the provision of section 2(e)(xxviii) of the I.R.O., 1969. It also duly covers all the workmen employed by the establishment on contract basis and even employed by the contractor under the contract. For the ready reference the :me is reproduced as under:‑‑ "Worker and workman' means any person not falling within the definition of employer who is employed including employment as Supervisor or as an apprentice, in an establishment or industry for hire or reward either directly or through a contractor whether the terms of employment be expressed or implied, and for the purpose of any proceedings under this Ordinance in relation to an industrial dispute includes a person who has been dismissed; discharged, retrenched, laid off or otherwise removed from employment in connection with or as a consequence of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge, retrenchment, lay off, or removal has led to that dispute." In view of all the admitted features of the case it is held that the petitioner is a workmen within the meaning of section 2(e)(xxviii) of the I.R.O.1969 and has got the right to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission under the aforesaid quoted position. On the basis of the evidence of the petitioner and also in view of the written statement of the respondent, it is held that the act of respondent by not allowing the petitioner to formulate a union in the establishment is an act of unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15 subsection 1(d)(ii) of the I.R.O., 1969, therefore, as a result of the above discussion the petitioner is declared to be in service from 25‑2‑1995 with full back benefits and the respondents are directed to make payment of the monthly pay of the petitioner since from 1995 uptil today i.e. 14‑5‑1995. The respondents are further directed not to dismiss, discharge, or terminated the service of the petitioner without the process of the law. The petitioner shall be treated in service irrespective of any contract of employment and cannot be dismissed, discharged, or terminated from the service without adopting the provision of law. The petitioner is also directed to immediately join the service. The petition is accepted. However, no order are passed regarding the costs of the petition. H.B.T./244/NIRC Petition accepted.