1995 PLP 223 (PLC)

Case No. 4‑A(30) of 1993, decided on 5th January, 1995. ‑‑‑‑Ss.15 & 22‑A(8)(g)‑‑‑Unfair labour practice on part of employers‑‑‑Earlier employees who had got move over, were held entitled to hire house according to their new grade and employer paid rental amount to owner of house on higher rate' of rent accordingly‑‑‑Later on when on recommendations of Assessment Committee, employees were held disentitled to get accommodation according to new grade, employer sought recovery of higher rental amount from employees which was paid by employer to landlord‑‑ Though act of employer to recover such amount from employees was illegal, but such act could not be termed as unfair labour practice on part of employers, especially when neither there was any evidence in that behalf nor employees had proved same on record as documentary evidence produced by employees was silent in that point‑‑‑Employees having failed to prove unfair labour practice on part of employers, petition in that respect, held, was not maintainable. This is a petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the IRO, 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 CBA. 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 accordingly a payment was made to the Owners of the Houses from whom the present petitioners obtained the houses according to their ceilings. 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 entitle 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 respondent 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 counsels 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 We committed any act of unfair labour practice in this behalf. The petitioners are 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 at 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 at all some money was paid illegally to the owners of the houses was a fault on the part of respondents and the petitioners cannot be victimised for the same. In this connection the judgement written by Mr. Justice (Retd.) Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry. in the case reported in PLD 1992 SC 207 is 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 IRO, 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 IRO 1969 which is dismissed without any orders as to costs. H.B.T./1038/NIRC Petition dismissed.