' SYED AKHTAR NAQI NAQVI, MEMBER.---This appeal is directed against the order dated 5-3-2002 passed by Mr. Riazul Hassan Alvi, LearnedMember (Single Bench) whereby he rejected the grievance petition filed by the petitioners while disposing of an application for temporiry injunction.
It has been inter alia contended that the impugned order of the learned Single Bench is against the law and facts of the case and has been passed without recording any evidence; that he erred in holding that the appellants have no prima facie arguable case and they will not suffer any irreparable loss. It was also contended that it is evident from the record that appellant No,1 is the President of CBA and is working as Security Supervisor for the last more than ten years while two persons junior to him are being promoted/posted without DPC.
2. .The brief facts of the case jhich led to the institution of this appeal are that the petitioners who include the petitioner No,1 being the President and the petitioner No,2 Minar-e-Pakistan.Employees Union registered CBA filed a grievance petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 in which they contended that the petitioner No,1 is the President of the aforesaid Employees Union and takes active part in the trade union activities at the platform of the said union. He was promoted as a Security Supervisor about 10 years back and by nature of his duties, he falls under the definition of worker/workman under the I.R.O., 1969; that the petitioner No,1 is the senior most in his cadre and therefore, entitled to promotion but he along with some of his companions was ignored and superseded by M. Ilyas, M. Razzaq and Attiq-ur-Rehman due to the petitioner's trade union activities as the same were not liked by the respondents. The petitioners have challenged the impugned promotion order dated 21-5-2001 on the ground that it is a result of unfair labour practice of the respondents committed upon the petitioners on account of the lawful trade union activities of the petitioner No,1. Along with the main grievance petition, the petitioners also filed an application under Regulation 32(2) of the NIRC (P&F) Regulations 1973 for a temporary relief of suspending the operation of the impugned order dated 21-5-2001.
3. The respondents contended the grievance petition and the stay application inter alia on the grounds that the petitioners have no locus standi, that the petition is not maintainable under the law and that the petitioners have filed this petition just to harass and blackmail the respondents as they have not come to the Court with clean hands. On merits it was averred that the petitioner No,1 was appointed as Colli in pay scale No,1 and not as a Security Supervisor and being the ex-cadre post he is not eligible for promotion to the rank of Security Supervisor. The respondents denied that they ever intervened into the affairs of the trade union of the petitioner and never asked any office- bearer or member of the union refrain from such trade union activities and that the petitioner was assigned the charge of Security Supervisor as stopgap arrangement with a clear condition that this assignment shall never establish the right of promotion in the cadre. The learned Single Bench while hearing the arguments on the stay application dismissed the same as well as the main grievance petition vide order dated 5-3-2002 which has been assailed by means of this appeal in which it has been contended that the learned Single Bench has erred in appreciating the law and in dismissing the main grievance petition without putting the parties to trial. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused record.
4. We would refrain ourselves from discussing the merits of the case lest it should prejudice the case of either side since we are inclinedto remand this case to the learned Single Bench for compelling reasons for its decision on merits after obtaining evidence from both sides. The appellant No,1 has specifically claimed that he was promoted as Security Supervisor and he is working in this capacity for the last about ten years. During the course of arguments he has claimed that he was employed in LDA and his services were transferred to the PHA after its creation. The respondents have contended that this was not a promotion and was only a stopgap arrangement. It was to be looked into whether a stopgap arrangement continues for a period of ten years without any regularization of the post and it was to be seen whether the services of the appellant No,1 could have been transferred to a newly created authority with lesser benefits then he was enjoying in the parent A department. All these could have been decided only if the appellants were allowed to adduce their evidence and the respondents could rebut that evidence.
The learned Single Bench has presumed the correctness of the documents appended with the pleadings which is not a proper judicial approach. Even if the documents were to be relied upon while disposing of the grievance petition, the learned Single Bench was under obligation to have got those documents proved in evidence by tendering in evidence or getting admission from the contesting side by dismissing the grievance petition while disposing of the application for stay and without adverting to the evidence to be led by the parties, the appellants have been badly prejudiced.
5. For the foregoing reasons this appeal is accepted to the extent of dismissal of the grievance petition, the case is remanded to the learned Single Bench with a direction to dispose of the same after obtaining evidence from both sides. File of this appeal shall be consigned to record while the original record shall be sent back to the learned Single Bench for further proceedings. accordingly. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.