1998 PLP 354 (PLC)

MUHAMMAD ZAMAN QURESHI (CHAIRMAN).

This appeal is directed against the decision dated 7-11-1996 recorded by Mr. Agha Saleem Khurshid, learned Member of this Commission in Case No.4-A(1750)/95-L.

2. The brief facts of the case are that Jamaluddin, Telephone Technician filed an application under section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 alleging that the petitioner is a worker and an active member of the Lahore Lions Staff Union. On account of his active trade union participation, the Divisional Engineer, Phones, Township Telephone Exchange, Lahore and Director, Phones IV, Lahore Region, Lahore extended threats to him, and warned him to stop his lawful trade union activities. On his refusal, he was victimised. A charge-sheet was issued to him and after holding farce enquiry and without following the procedure, he was held guilty and a recovery of Rs.8,339 was imposed upon him. Departmental appeal filed by the petitioner was also mechanically turned down. It was further stated in the petition that persons junior to him were promoted and he was ignored. The respondents were, therefore, guilty of committing unfair labour practice. It was prayed that the punishment order for recovery of Rs.8,339 may be declared illegal and that the name of the petitioner be included in the list of prospective promotees to be considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee.

3. Notice of the application was issued to the respondents/appellants. No reply was filed by them. The learned Member of the Commission directed both the parties to 'submit their affidavits in evidence in support of their contentions. None of the parties, produced affidavits in evidence, resultantly, the petition was allowed vide impugned order on the basis of the pleadings of the parties.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that all employees of the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation have been held to be civil servants and relied on PLD 1996 SC 222 = 1996 PLC (C.S.)

545. He further urged that all the cases pending shall abate in view of insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Another contention made by the learned counsel is that the respondent was involved in misconduct, he was charge-sheeted, proper enquiry was held against him and after he was held guilty, the punishment of recovery was imposed upon him in accordance with the Departmental rules. The appeal filed by him was duly considered and rejected. There was, therefore, no element of unfair labour practice involved in the case. The petition filed by the respondent was also time barred. The learned counsel for the respondent in reply argued that the respondent is a workman as shown in the Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and is, therefore, not a civil servant even after insertion of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The punishment awarded to him was the direct result of the participation in the trade union activities. The appellants had, therefore, committed acts of unfair labour practice. It was further submitted that the appellant failed to give any reply to the petition. The application of the respondent was duly supported by the affidavit. The appellants failed to adduce any evidence or filed affidavit in evidence. As such, the allegations made by the respondent in his petition were not rebutted, therefore, the learned Member of the Commission correctly recorded the decision on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the documents placed on the record.

5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. The perusal of Office Order No. DE/NWD /Enquiry/15, dated 7-3-1993 (Annexure 'B' of the petition) shows that the recovery of Rs.8,339 was imposed on the respondent towards Telephone charges for misusing the closed telephone numbers after issuing proper charge and holding enquiry. The appeal made by the respondent was duly considered and rejected by the competent Authority vide order dated 2-5-1995 (Annexure 'D' to the petition). Certificate dated 6-6-1995 (Annexure ' A' of the petition) shows that the respondent had remained General Secretary in the Division from 1989-1991. It had, therefore, no nexus with the punishment awarded to the respondent in 1993 on account of his lapses. The learned Member of the Commission failed to decide the punishment was on account of victimisation as a result of participation in the trade union activities by the respondent and whether the appellant had committed any act of unfair labour practice, which, we hold is lacking in this case. The decision recorded by the learned Member of this Commission is also not a speaking order. It is, therefore, not necessary for us to examine other points raised by the learned counsel of the parties. We are, therefore, inclined to accept the appeal and set aside the impugned order A without any order as to costs. H.B.T./304/N.I.R.C. Appeal accepted.