1996 PLP 109 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 22‑A(8)(g) & 22‑C‑‑‑Joint application of employees ‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑ Employee at the time of privatization of employer‑establishment alongwith various other employees of establishment, had entered into a settlement with the employer‑establishment whereby they had received heavy amount of money in lieu of Golden Handshake offered by employer‑establishment and thereafter with their mutual consent services of employee alongwith other employees were terminated‑‑‑Employee was re‑employed by employer establishment, but neither any appointment letter was issued to him nor was any written contract made between parties‑‑‑Employee, who was employed on daily wages basis or against some small piece of work, could not be treated as a. permanent employee of establishment‑‑‑Employee being not a permanent worker, could not claim lawful rights to invoke jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission for alleged violation of S. 15 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑‑‑Employee could agitate such question before Labour Court under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑‑‑National Industrial Relations Commission enjoyed jurisdiction to adjudicate and hear cases falling under Newspaper Employees' (Conditions of Service) Act, 1973, but through an amendment, jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission had been transferred to the Tribunal‑‑‑Petition filed by employee against his grievance, under S. 22‑A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, thus, was not maintainable. Shahid Salim, Attorney for Petitioner. Ch. Naseer Ahmed for Respondents. By this common order I intend to dispose of the main Petitions Nos. 4‑A(59)/95 and 24(87)/95 as well as off shoot of the case i.e. application under section 22‑C of the I.R.O., 1969 in Case No. 7(33) of 1995. In the main petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 which represented through Attorney namely Mr. Shahid Salim, the learned Attorney submitted that the petitioner was an active member of Punjab Union of Journalists and was also elected Chief of Pakistan Times Unit of Rawalpindi‑‑Islamabad union of Journalists till February, 1995. It was contended that the establishment of Pakistan Times is bent upon victimisation of the petitioner as still he was not issued any appointment letter with the mala fide intention of refraining the petitioner to take part in the lawful trade union activities. Under such circumstances the petition was registered and interim injunction order was issued in favour of the petitioner on 12‑4‑1995.

2. The petition was strongly contested by the respondents by way of filing of written statement and rejoinder to the stay application wherein certain preliminary legal objection as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised.

3. During the pendency of the case an application under section 22‑C of the I.R.O., 1969 was also filed wherein notices were also issued to the respondents who have filed their comments.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and the Attorney of the petitioner upon the maintainability of the main petition as well as on the application under section 22‑C of the I.R.O., 1969 and have also accordingly examined the material available on record. It is an admitted feature of the case that at the time of privatization of the establishment, the petitioner alongwith various other employees of the establishment, entered into a settlement with the respondents whereby they have received heavy amounts of money in lieu of Golden Handshake offered by the respondents' establishment and thereafter with their mutual consent the services of the petitioner alongwith other employees were terminated with effect from 15‑11‑1994. In this connection I have also passed another order dated 18‑4‑1995 in Case No.4‑A(24) of 1995. However, it is also an admitted feature that the petitioner was re‑employed by the respondents' Establishment but neither any appointment letter was issued to the petitioner nor there is a written contract between the parties. There is no other option with this Commission but to accept the contention of the respondents that the petitioner was employee on daily wages basis or against some small piece of work, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be termed as a permanent employee of the establishment. The establishment aspect of the case to which I am concerned of the petitioner there is a registered trade union in the respondents' establishment nor the petitioner can claim the performance of certain lawful trade union activities. Similarly, being not a permanent worker even the petitioner cannot claim the lawful rights to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission for the violation of section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969. Accordingly, the necessary element for the exercising of jurisdiction by this Commission i.e. unfair labour practice with the meaning of sections 15 and 16 of the I.R.O., 1969 is also lacking. The petitioner, however, can agitate such question before the Labour Court under section 25 of the I.R.O., 1969, if so desire. Besides, before the promulgation of the Newspaper. Employees' (Condition of Service) Amendment Act, 1976, this Commission (N.I.R.C.) was enjoying the jurisdiction to adjudicate and hear the cases falling under the Newspapers Employees' (Condition of Service) Amendment Act, 1973, but through said amendment in section 12‑A of the said Act, the jurisdiction of this Commission was transferred to Tribunal, so constituted under section 12‑A by the Federal Government. It has also been pointed out that the petitioner has also approached the said Tribunal in this behalf.

5. Therefore, as a result of the above discussion I am of the view that petition is not maintainable under the provision of section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 and, therefore, the petition is dismissed without any orders as to costs. The application under section 22‑C of the I.R.O., 1969 is also dismissed without any further proceedings. A.B.T./254/NIRC Petition dismissed.