1999 PLP 196 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 22‑A(8)(b) & 25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Competency‑‑‑Employee who was dismissed from service approached National Industrial Relations Commission by filing petition under S. 22‑A(8)(b) of National Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑‑‑Pending petition before National Industrial Relations Commission, employee also filed grievance petition under S. 25‑A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before Labour Court‑‑‑Labour Court had refused to proceed with grievance petition filed before it by employee holding that likelihood of conflicting judgments being delivered by two forums could not be ruled out‑‑‑Labour Court directed employee to exhaust his remedy before National Industrial Relations Commission first and he could approach Labour Court afterwards‑‑‑Decision of Labour Court was upheld in appeal. Muhammad Suleman Malik for Appellant. Saleem Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th March, 1998 By a judgment, rendered by Malik Mushtaq Ahmad, Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.8, at Bahawalpur, the grievance ‑petition filed under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by the appellant was dismissed and he has preferred the present appeal before this forum. The appellant was dismissed from service on 9‑7‑1992, and he approached the National Industrial Relations Commission (N:I.R.C.), with a prayer that operation of the dismissal order be suspended. It was prayed that: the employer be directed not to commit any act of unfair labour practice and not to oust the official from service or revert him. According to the official, the order of his dismissal from service had been passed by the employer during pendency of his petition before the N.I.R.C. The learned lower Court has endorsed the view point of the employer that pendency of the petition of the employee in two forums, the N.I.R.C. and the Labour Court, being more or less similarly founded or based, the same may lead to multiplicity of proceedings, which the law ordains to avoid.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant maintains that the grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, having been filed after the appellant's dismissal from service, and being proceedings of independent character, could not be termed as amounting to or entailing multiplicity of proceedings, the petition before the N.I.R.C. having been filed under section 22‑A(8)(g) (ibid), and being of earlier initiation. During pendency of the grievance petition, under section 25‑A, in the Labour Court, the other petition before the N.I.R.C. was also pending, but the same has since been disposed of finally by the learned Chairman of the N.I.R.C., by his order dated 25‑1‑1995. It is an exhaustive order and has to be gone through with care and objectivity. It reveals that the official had been playing hide and seek with the Commission and had also been guilty of concealment of material steps in the proceedings and various developments having occurred in the course of the litigation. Petitions before the N.I.R.C. were dismissed in default, one after the other, but the official did not stop there. What has been observed by the Hon'ble Chairman, in the course of his decision, especially at pages Nos. 2 to 4 would highlight lack of uprightness of the conduct of the official. Without applying for restoration of the earlier application, the official used to make another application before the N.I.R.C. As stated in para No. 2 of the order dated 25‑1‑1995, so many applications were made by the official and got dismissed for non‑prosecution, and he had gone up even to the High Court, and by not stating true facts got issued a contempt of Court notice by the Hon'ble High Court to the learned Senior Member of the Commission. Stay Orders were obtained by the official, mostly on wrongly stated facts, by hoodwinking the real issue, and misguiding different forums, by mis‑stating the facts there. The impression gathered was that he was endeavouring to put the respondents into corner and to subject his employer to harassment. The learned Chairman formed the view that the respondents did not act in haste and with mala fide intentions or ulterior motives against the official, who was even helped in retaining the residential quarter and in ensuring the schooling of his children in an institution of his choice. It was observed that it would not really be true that he was being victimised, because of his trade union activities; in fact he had been approaching the Commission with unclean hands. He was punished in accordance with law and his retention on the rolls f the establishment, keeping in view his nefarious and dubious activities, was found to be not equitably and legally warranted, and he was, therefore, justifiably ousted from service.

4. The learned lower Court had refused to proceed with the grievance petition, in view of the fact that likelihood of conflicting judgments being delivered by that two forums could not be ruled out. The official was, therefore, advised to exhaust his remedy before the N.I.R.C. first, and he could of course approach the Labour Court afterwards. The petition before the N.I.R.C. was pending, when the official had filed his grievance petition in the Labour Court. I fail to find any fault with the decision rendered by the learned lower Court and uphold it. The appeal being without merit is hereby dismissed, with costs. H.B.T./923/Lb.P ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????? Appeal dismissed.