The petitioner named above has filed this petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and alongwith it has filed application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 alleging therein that he is employee of respondents and he is active member of Organization of KPT Workers Union and is taking active part in the performance of trade union activities which are usually not liked by the respondents and they have been calling upon the petitioner off and on and asking him to desist from his trade union activities otherwise he will be punished in respect of his employment. He has alleged that the respondent had hatched a conspiracy against him and served him with a false charge-sheet that he produced bogus Matriculation Certificate on the basis of which he obtained two advance increments. He has alleged that the respondents want to get rid of him by hook or crook. He has prayed that the actions of the respondents may be declared as acts of unfair labour practice and he may not be punished on the above false charge- sheet.
2. The respondents filed written comments in which they have denied the various allegations of the petitioner. They have denied that the petitioner is a active trade unionist or that he is carrying on any trade union activities. They have denied that they have any ill-will against the petitioner or that they have, threatened him of dismissal from service. On the other hand they stated that the petitioner had submitted Matriculation Certificate on the basis of which he obtained the benefits of two advance increments and when the said certificate was sent to the Board of Secondary Education Karachi, it was reported that certificate is bogus and false. According to the respondents on the basis of this a charge-sheet was issued by the respondents which constitutes acts of misconduct on the part of respondents. The respondents have raised legal objections that the petitioner has failed to quote a single instance of unfair labour practice in his whole petition and that holding of inquiry is right and prerogative of the employer and that cannot be denied (sic) employer. They also stated that the petitioner is civil servant and, therefore, his (sic) does not lie before this Commission but his remedy lies before FST.
3. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Advocate for the respondents on stay application. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents attached thereto. I have gone through the authorities submitted by learned Advocate for the respondent.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he had not applied for grant of two advance increments on the basis of Matriculation Certificate. He also denied that he has produced any certificate. On the other hand he states that he is illiterate and he has not produced any certificate, therefore, there is no question of obtaining advance increments. The respondents have produced application of the petitioner as Annex.R/1 with their comments that petitioner had applied for advance increment.
Even otherwise if it may be assumed for the sake of arguments that he had not applied for advance increments then how he was getting two advance increments and when he advance increment why he did not object to the grant of increments and why he did not write to the respondents that since he was not matriculate he did not apply for advance increments. Even on coming to know of issuance of charge-sheet the petitioner did not offer to return the amount. This shows the dishonest attitude of the petitioner that on the one hand he is accepting and taking the benefits of advance increments and in the same breath he says that he has not only one passed the Matriculation Examination but he did not apply for grant of two advance increments.
5. In view of above situation there is no doubt that the petitioner has produced bogus certificate on the basis of which he obtained two advance increments which amount he did not refund to the respondents nor he offered to refund the same and this is certainly misconduct on the part of petitioner and, therefore, the respondents are within their rights to hold inquiry against him and take appropriate action according to law.
6. Even otherwise the petitioner has not given the instances of unfair labour practice on the part of respondents. He has also failed to quote the activities which he performed for the trade union which specifically annoyed the respondents. In absence of these particulars the petitioner cannot maintain, his petition on the ground of unfair labour practice. The petition of the petitioner is, therefore, not maintainable for want of clear instances of unfair labour practice and for want of his own instances which annoyed the respondents to take action against the petitioner.
7. The charge-sheet is such that it is relatable either to trade union activities of the petitioner or to the acts of unfair labour practice on the part of respondents. Learned Advocate for the respondents argued that the petitioner is civil servant and his remedy lies before FST. I have already decided this point by way of judgment dated 9-10-2002. This order was never challenged by any party and, therefore, at this stage the respondents cannot dispute that the petitioner cannot approach this Commission. If the respondents are still of the opinion that employees of KPT cannot approach this Commission then they should file appeal against my order or they should file petition before High Court to get it set aside.
In any way the petition of the petitioner is not maintainable in the facts and circumstances given by the petitioner, hence the petition is dismissed alongwfth stay application.
' Announced in Open Court.