1995 PLP 548 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 16 & 22‑A(8)(g)‑‑‑Unfair labour practice on part of workmen‑‑ Employees on basis of report of Assessment Committee/Assessment Council duly constituted by employers, were allotted houses according to their ceiling of grade in which they were working‑‑‑Later on when employees got move‑over to the next grade, they on recommendation of Assessment Committee/Assessment Council, were found entitled to hire rental ceiling according to the ceiling in which they had got move‑over and accordingly payment was made to the owners of houses from whom employees had obtained houses according to their ceiling/entitlement‑‑‑Employers subsequently, found that employees were entitled for the ceiling of grade under which they were already working and no change should have been made in rental ceiling due to their move‑over and employers initiated recovery proceedings against employees in respect of payments made to owners of houses concerned‑‑‑Enhanced rent of houses was paid to owners on recommendation of duly constituted Assessment Committee/Assessment Council, neither any mala fide intention was shown on part of employees to obtain money nor they had committed any act of unfair labour practice in that respect‑‑‑Employees in fact were entitled for the ceiling of the houses according to their respective grades from date of their move‑over to the next grade‑‑‑Even otherwise if at all some money was paid illegally to the owners of the houses, it was fault on the part of employers and employees‑ could not be victimised for the same‑‑‑Employers in circumstances, were not entitled for recovery of amount from the employees. PLD 1992 SC 207 ref. (b) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 22‑A(8)(g)‑‑‑Unfair labour practice on part of employers‑‑ Employees, though in their petition against employers had leveled certain allegations with regard to recovery of amount from them allegedly made in excess of their entitlement in respect of rent of houses, but petition against employers did not constitute any act of unfair labour practice on part of employers‑‑‑Neither there was any evidence in that behalf nor employees had proved on record that certain unfair labour practice was committed by employers and documentary evidence produced by employees was also silent in that behalf‑‑‑In absence of anything on record to establish act of unfair labour practice on part of employers, petition under S. 22‑A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was not maintainable. This is a petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 wherein 47 petitioners have contended that they are the employees of the respondents and are members as well as office‑bearers of the union namely Pakistan WAPDA Hydero‑Electric Central Labour Union which is also a C.BA. The petitioners were allotted houses according to their ceiling of the grade in which they were working on the due process and the completion of the necessary formalities, and also on the basis of the report of the Assessment Committee/Assessment Council formed by the respondents. It was submitted that on move‑over to the next grade they were entitled to hire rental ceiling according to the ceiling of the grade in which they had got move‑over and accordingly a payment was made to the owners of the houses from whom the present petitioners obtained the houses according to their ceiling. However, subsequently, the respondents found that the petitioners were entitled for the ceiling of the grade under which they were working and no change should have been made in the rental ceiling of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners were declared not entitled to enhanced ceiling of the next grade on the basis of move‑over. However, during this period payments were already made to the owners of the houses concerned. The respondents initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioners.

2. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have examined the record of the case. The entire case can be decided on the basis of the documents and arguments of the learned counsel and there is no need of taking oral evidence from the parties nor the parties have desired to produce oral evidence. On the basis of the perusal of the record, it is evident that the Assessment Committee/Assessment Council constituted by the respondents have duly approved the allotment of the houses to the petitioners while they were working in their respective grade and subsequently, on the basis of the recommendation of the Assessment Committee/Assessment Council, the cheques of the rent money was paid to the concerned owners from whom the petitioners have obtained the houses. Therefore, admittedly there is neither any mala fide intention on the part of the petitioners to obtain money nor they have committed any act of unfair labour practice in this behalf. The petitioners were in fact entitled for the ceiling of the house according to their respective grades from the date of their move‑over, to the next grade. It cannot be said that although they have obtained promotion by way of move‑over to the next grade but were not entitled to the benefits attached therewith. Even otherwise if at all some money was paid illegally to the owners of the houses, was a fault on the part of the respondents and the petitioners cannot be victimised for the same. In this connection the judgment written by Mr. Justice (Retd.) Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry in the case reported as PLD 1992 SC 207 as referred. Therefore, it is held that respondents are not entitled for the recovery of any amount from the petitioners and all the steps taken in this behalf are declared to be illegal and unlawful.

3. It is, however, important to observe that the present petition does not constitute act of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents in order to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission. Neither there is any evidence in this behalf nor the petitioners have proved on record that certain unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969 is committed by the respondents. The documentary evidence produced by the petitioners is also silent in this behalf, although certain allegations were levelled in the main petition. Therefore, there is nothing on record in order to establish the act of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents. The petition, therefore, is not maintainable under section 22‑A (8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 which is dismissed without any order as to costs. H.B.T./229/N.I.R.C. Petition dismissed.