' ALI NAWAZ A. CHANNA (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal under section 22-D of I.R.O., 1969 is directed against the order of learned Member, N.I.R.C. Lahore dated 1-2-2002 by which order he dismissed the petition of the appellant. The appellant Javed Iqbal having become aggrieved by that order has filed this appeal.
2. The appellant Javed Iqbal had filed petition before the learned Member N.I.R.C, Lahore, with the allegations that he was appointed as Telephone Operator on temporary basis vide appointment order dated 9-3-1992 but the post held by him was of permanent nature and he remained working on this post upto 9-8-1995 i,e, for a period of about 3-1/2 years. He had alleged that he was entitled to be absorbed and confirmed in the post but the respondents as an act of unfair labour practice not only refused to absorb him on his post but terminated him from the service. He has alleged that he was member of a trade union due to which the respondents were annoyed with him and due to his trade union activities the respondents got rid of him. He had prayed to the Court that his termination order may be declared as illegal and he may be treated to be permanent employee and absorb him in the said post.
3. The respondents had resisted the claim of the appellant before the learned Member and stated that the appellant was appointed against temporary leave vacancy and it was made clear in his appointment order that his appointment was on a purely temporary post and, therefore, the appellant had no right to be confirmed on the said post. They however, stated that by policy dated 16-5-1995 the qualification for the post of Telephone Operator was fixed to the Intermediate but since the appellant did not conform to this qualification hence he was not absorbed in the said post.
4. We have heard the learned Labour Representative for the appellant and the learned Advocate for the respondents. We have gone through the records of the case very minutely and have also gone through the impugned order. There is no doubt that the appellant was appointed on 9-3- 1992 on a temporary post of leave vacancy created by one Naseer Ahmad. In this connection the appointment letter has been produced on record. There is also no doubt that the appellant continued into service upto 9-8-1995. In this way the appellant contends that since he had continuously worked on a post for 3-1/2 years he had become entitled to be confirmed on the said post and was entitled to be declared as permanent and should have been absorbed on the said post. As against this the contention of the respondent is that since the appellant was appointed on purely temporary basis and since he was not having proper qualification required for the post of Telephone Operator hence he was not to be absorbed or confirmed in the post in accordance with the policy formulated by the respondents dated 16-5-1995. According to them the respondents had formulated a policy to accommodate and regularize the services of ad hoc or temporary employees, whereby certain qualifications were fixed for certain posts. Their contention was that for the post of Telephone Operator, the qualification was Intermediate and since the appellant was not having requisite qualification, he was not absorbed, while those who conformed to this policy were absorbed and confirmed.
5. Learned Advocate for the appellant argued that this policy was not applicable to the appellant as this policy cannot be given retrospective effect. He argued that the appellant was appointed on 9-3-1992 and at that time the qualification for Telephone Operator was Matric and not Intermediate hence the policy letter of the respondents dated 16-5-1995 cannot be made applicable to the appellant. The contention of the learned Advocate of the appellant is based on misconception. The policy was not to be given retrospective effect but it was particularly applied to the persons who were holding temporary jobs. The temporary holders of the jobs were to be absorbed in the job on the fullfilment of these requirements. This policy was a concession to the temporary employees and who conformed to this policy would be given benefit. This policy was made applicable to the persons who were holding temporary jobs at the time, of issuance of this policy letter dated 16-5-1995. The appellant was to be tested according to this policy then he was to be confirmed while he was not to be considered retrospectively when he joined the service. It is a sorry state of affairs that from 9-3-1992 to 9-8-1995 the appellant did not take any measures to get any higher education. This policy was for all the employees and not for appellant particularly. If the appellant was not inconformity with this policy then he was not entitled to be confirmed or absorbed in service.
6. The learned Advocate for the respondents then argued that the petition of the appellant before the learned Member was not maintainable because the termination order was issued on 9-8-1995 whereas the petitioner filed his petition before the learned Member, N.I.R.C., Lahore on 4-10-1995 i,e, after about 2 months.
7. As against this the learned Advocate for the appellant argued that the appellant was not in the knowledge of his termination and he came to know about his termination after filing of the petition before the learned Member N LR.C., Lahore. The contention of the appellant appears to be false because if he was not terminated from service on 9-8-1995 then he must have been on duty upto 4-10-1995. He has not produced anything to show that from 9-8-1995 to 4-10-1995 he was on duty.
No attendance sheet etc., has been produced by him to show that in fact he was on duty during the said time. Moreover the appellant has himself produced his letter dated 3-11-1995 addressed to the respondents for taking him on duty in compliance of order of Chairman dated 4-10-1995. He has himself produced another letter of the respondents dated 26-11-1995 which is reply of the respondents to the above letter of appellant in which the respondents informed the appellant that he cannot be taken on duty as he was already terminated from service w,e,f, 9-8-1995 and directions of N.I.R.C. Were that the appellant be taken on duty if he has not been terminated.
Against this reply the appellant did not agitate that the reply was false or that he is still in service and that he has not been terminated from service as claimed by the respondents. He was satisfied from this reply of the respondents which means that he was terminated from service w,e,f, 9-8- 1995. The stay of N.I.R.C. Was dated 4-10-1995 and had the appellant been in service, he would have rushed to the respondents not to terminate him from service, but the appellant knew that he was not in service, hence he was reluctant to deliver stay order to the respondents knowing fully well that he was not going to get any benefit from the said stay order, however, he took a chance and gave application to the respondents on 3-11-1995 to take him on duty, which was duly replied by the respondents. From all these facts, it is more than clear that the appellant knew at the time of filing of his petition that he was not in service arid he intentionally concealed this fact in his application. Since the appellant was terminated from service on 9-8-1995 and he filed his petition on 4-10-1995 i,e, after about two months hence the unfair labour practice, if any, was already committed and completed and, therefore, the N.I.R.C. Has no jurisdiction to entertain such type of cases. The jurisdiction of the N.I.R.C. Extends to prevention of acts of unfair labour practice but where the acts of unfair labour practice have already been committed then the N.I.R.C. Had no jurisdiction under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O. To entertain such petitions. If the appellant was aggrieved that he was terminated from service on account of his trade union activities then the remedy for him was to either file a complaint under section 53 of the I.R.O. Or should have approached the Federal Service Tribunal for redressal of his grievance. In this case since the alleged unfair labour practice was already done and completed hence the petition of the petitioner was not maintainable. Reliance in this connection can be placed on 1976 PLC 47, 1990 PLC 599 and 1984 PLC 1342.
8. Even otherwise the appellant has failed to give instances of unfair labour practice committed by the respondents. He has produced a certificate from the union which is also a doubtful document.
Merely being a member of a union would not furnish the instances of unfair labour practice. It is doubtful whether temporary employee could become the member of any trade union. Further merely being a member is not sufficient for holding that the appellant was doing trade union activities due to which the respondents were annoyed with him. Even the appellant has failed to quote the instances as to what trade union activities he was doing which annoyed the respondents. In this way the petition of the appellant was devoid of instance of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents and also devoid of his own activities which annoyed the respondents. Accordingly in the absence of these instances the petition of the appellant was not maintainable before the learned Member.
' In view of above stated circumstances and facts we are of the opinion that the petition of the appellant was not maintainable before the learned Member N.I.R.C and that the judgment of the learned Member does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or misreading or non-reading of the evidence. This appeal has no merits and does not call for any interference. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed and the order of the learned Member is maintained.