' SYED AKHTAR NAQI NAQVI (MEMBER).---Muhammad Siddique appellant has assailed the order dated 30-5-2002 passed by the learned Single Bench whereby grievance petition filed by the petitionerwas dismissed while disposing of an application under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C.
(P&F) Regulations, 1973 for temporary relief. The appellant averred that he joined Pakistan Mint as Khalasi in PBS-1 in theyear 1980 and during his service he remained a regular and active worker of Haqiqi Anjuman Mint Mulazmeen and has been contributing towards the union fund. However, the respondent No,1 after having assumed the office of Deputy Mint Master wanted the appellant to join the Aqil Khan Group as fresh elections were due and Aqil Khan had held him out in an inquiry against him and he threatened the appellant to leave the union activities as an alternate. It was further averred that the respondent No,2 wanted the petitioner to work on a machine other than the one on which he was already working but the appellant declined on account of his lack of knowledge with regard to its working. That denial was not taken in good taste and the said officer wanted the appellant to proceed on 20 days leave. He got signed a blank paper and delivered a letter dated 15-12-1998 pretending to be a leave sanctioned order which transpired subsequently to be a resignation of the appellant from service which resignation was approved by the respondent No,1 forthwith due to the annoyance that already existed in his mind. The appellant attributed all these acts of the respondents towards his lawful trade union activities, his refusal to the respondent's demands of joining a particular group and on account of unfair labour practice allegedly exercised by the respondents. Along with the grievance petition the appellant also filed an application under Regulations 32(2) of the N.I. R. C. (P&F) Regulations, B 1973 for temporary relief for suspending the impugned action pending decision of this grievance petition.
2. The grievance petition was contested by the respondents inter alia on the grounds that after the induction of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition, the petition was filed with mala tide intention and ulterior motives and that the petition does not fall within the ambit of section 22-A (8)(g)of the I.R.O., 1969. On merits the allegation with regard to obtain forged resignation from the appellant was denied. Same were the contents of the stay application.
3. After hearing both the parties, the learned Single Bench dismissed the stay application and while disposing of the stay application he was also pleased to dismiss the main grievance petition vide order dated 30-5-2002 which has been assailed by means of this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It was contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the learned Single Member has erred in law in dismissing the grievance petition while disposing of the stay application on the ground that if the petitioner did not succeed in establishing that it was a case of unfair labour practice and that he has been victimized only because of his trade union activities, then this Commission will have no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties and in the absence of above-mentioned material aspects the provision of section 2-A of the Service Tribunals Act will apply with full force. It was also contended that the appellant is an illiterate person and is 40 years old with nine children including six daughters and he could not therefore afford to resign in these hard days and forging the resignation is in itself an act of unfair labour practice.
5. A perusal of record would show that some kind of evidence was produced before the learned Member/Single Bench consisting of an affidavit Exh.-P/1 on which the appellant had been cross examined, a certificate from Haqiqi Anjuman Mint Mulazmeen, copy of an appeal addressed to the Secretary Finance Govt. Of the Pakistan, Islamabad against the issuance of unlawful resignation, the impugned resignation. In his statement the appellant reiterated that he had not submitted his resignation and denied incorrect that he had twisted the facts. There was a counter affidavit of Akhtar Ali Exh.-RW/2. However this affidavit Exh.-P/1 was not properly appreciated. The appellant had denied having submitted any resignation and the onus of proof was on the respondents to have proved the same. There is only statement of Akhtar Ali RW/1 who submitted his affidavit-in- evidence Exh.-R/2 but the scrutiny of his statement would reveal that he is neither the author nor an attesting witness of the impugned resignation R/1 nor it bears the signatures in any position. He simply stated that he received the same after its approval and then he came to know of it. Neither the officer who had recommended nor the one who approved the said resignation has been produced in evidence, hence the respondent-establishment lacks in every respect. Even otherwise it was not properly appreciated as the learned Single Member/Single Member himself observed in the last lines of the order under appeal that he feels no hesitation while holding that the case did not fall within the jurisdiction of this Commission, hence he need not to dilate his attention on merits and the other material aspect of the case and on this ground he dismissed the main grievance petition. This is a practice which has always been deprecated by the Superior Courts hence the same cannot be sustained. So far as the application for temporary injunction is concerned, action has already been taken on the impugned order and therefore, it will not be proper to reopen the matter. Needless to say that the appellant himself has not agitated for a temporary relief in the memorandum of appeal.
6. For the aforesaid reasons we would hold that the order regarding dismissal of the grievance petition while disposing of the stay application and without discussing the merits of the case properly cannot be sustained. The appeal is therefore, accepted, order under appeal is set aside to the extent of dismissal of the main grievance petition without discussing its merits and the case is remanded to the learned Single Bench for its decision on merits. File of this appeal be consigned to record. The file of the Single Bench shall be restored to its original position.