' SYED AKHTAR NAQI NAQVI (SENIOR MEMBER).--- This appeal is directed against the order, dated 3- 2-2006 passed by the learned Chairman as learned Member Single Bench, Lahore whereby the impugned termination order allegedly passed on 23-12-2000 and issued on 3-1-2001 has been set aside as having been passed during the currency of the restraint order of this commission as well as in clear violation of principles of natural justice and the appellants were directed to pay all the benefits to the respondent till the date of his superannuation which according to the management itself was 65 years. The brief history of this litigation would be out of place to narrate here which according to the litigation pending between the parties is as under:--
(i) The respondent was appointed in the appellant-establishment. Initially he was an accounts clerk and thereafter he became an Assistant Accountant but since he was a worker by the nature of his duties, he participated in the lawful trade union activities and became the President of "Rustam Sohrab Cycle Factory Employees Union" which was also certified as C.B.A. And held this certificate for most of the time, in view of his date of birth being 15-6-1938 he was retired from service on 14-6-1998 but prior to the issuance of notification, the Board of the appellant- establishment in its meeting held on 5-6-1998 by referring the earlier order regarding retirement of the respondent on the basis of his work and conduct during his past, decided to grant promotion to the respondent to the post of Accountant along with grant of extension in his service for a period of one year with effect from the date of his earlier retirement It was thereafter that the Manager Personnel of the appellant- establishment pointed out some ambiguities in the aforesaid order by means of a letter No,B-116 dated 12-6-1998 that the Accountant's age of superannuation was 65 years as per relevant Employment Regulation and as Assistant Accountant, the respondent had to retire w,e,f, 14-6-1998 on attaining the age of superannuation as it was 60 years and by virtue of the relevant Employment Regulation on promotion to the post of Accountant, the respondent would attain superannuation at the age of 65 years hence the Manager Personnel sought clarification from the competent authority till the receipt of such clarification, he deferred the matter of issuance of extension/promotion letter to the respondent. As per record it was thereafter that a corrigendum was issued on 15-6-1998. It would be helpful to 'reproduce the same as under:-- "An amendment is made in I.O.N. S/No,3(1) Board Meeting No,1208 dated 5-6-1998 regarding as under:- 'Promotion and extension in service period to Ch. Muhammad Yousaf Assistant Accountant..."
' According to which above said employee was granted promotion and extension in his service period for one year.
' Please consider and read this declaration that the above said employee Ch. Muhammad Yousaf Assistant Accountant C.No,025172 was approved by the Board for promotion to the post of Accountant.
' Instead of Promotion along with the grant of extension in service period."
' With that the condition of one year extension was deleted in view of Regulation No,2 of the appellant-establishment and the respondent was to retire after being promoted as Accountant at the age of 65 years and this process was followed by an order issued by the Manager Personnel informing the respondent that he had been promoted by the management to the post of Accountant w,e,f, 14-6-1998. In this duration the respondent in his position as President of the C.B.A.
Union under apprehension of victimization against the office-bearers of the union. Preferred a grievance Petition bearing No,4A(467)00-L. This petition was heard by the then learned Chairman who issued notices to the appellants for 30-12-2000 on which date the Personnel Manager of the appellant establishment namely Mr. Saeed Azhar appeared on behalf of the appellants when an interim order was passed by the then learned Chairman directing the appellants to continue with the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent and his co-workers and hold departmental inquiry against them but not to pass any final adverse order against them till the next date of hearing. The learned Chairman also directed the Personnel Manager to produce inquiry report/findings before this Commission as and when it was complete and the case was adjourned to 19-1-2001, on which date it was ordered that the interim order shall continue. On 20-2- 2001 the management informed the then learned Chairman that some of the petitioners of that petition had been reinstated and the charges against them had been withdrawn and thus, requested to delete their names and as such their names were deleted but the stay order earlier passed on 30-12-2000 remained intact with regard to the other petitioners of that petition.
(ii) However, in view of a letter received by the respondent on 3-1-2001 and apparently dated 23- 12-2000 being letter No,B-116 regarding removal of the respondent from service, the latter assailed the said action of the appellant vide Petition bearing No,4A(15)/01-L. The parties were busy in this trial and the evidence was being recorded when Mr. Abdul Sattar Malik Director Stores and Supply of the appellant-establishment made a statement that in case the respondent withdrew his aforesaid petition and approached the establishment, his case would be considered sympathetically so as to redress his grievance and in the light of this offer made by a responsible Director of the appellant-establishment, the said Case No,4A(15)/01-L was disposed of directing the respondent to move an application in the aforesaid terms and directing the Board of Directors to decide the case sympathetically within a period of two months and the respondent was also directed that in case his grievance was not redressed, he would be at liberty to move a simple application for "resurrection" of the aforesaid petition. It was perhaps for the reason that trade union disputes were pending before the learned Chairman in his position as learned Member Single Bench which were resolved through the cooperative behaviour of the said Director and positive attitude of the respondent, that the learned Chairman disposed of the matter by the aforesaid order. The respondent in pursuance of this settlement moved an application before the appellant-establishment but the management rejected his plea vide order, dated 3-5-2005, hence the respondent submitted an application before the learned Chairman along with the order, dated 4-3-2005 informing thereby that his grievance had not been redressed. The learned Chairman restored the said case and heard the parties at length and vide order, dated 3-2-2006 observed that the termination letter of the respondent allegedly passed on 23-12-2000 and issued on 3-1-2001 passed during the pendency of restraint order of this Commission and therefore, was set aside as it was also in clear violation of principles of natural justice. The appellant- establishment was also directed that the respondent be paid all his fringe benefits from 4-1-2001 till the date of his superannuation which according to the management itself was 65 years. This order has been assailed by means of this appeal inter alia on the following grounds:-- ' that the Petition bearing No,4A(15)/01-L was not legally maintainable before this Commission as contempt petition on the same set of facts was filed simultaneously alleging violation of the order, dated 30-12-2000 passed in Case No,4A(467)/00-L which case had been disposed of as having become infructuous vide order, dated 20-3-2001 to the extent of the respondent and since the Petition bearing No,4A(15)/01-L was not maintainable, all subsequent proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction, that the respondent filed a contempt petition for enforcement of the order passed in Case No,4A(46'7)/00-L and there was no question of filing a petition under section 22- A(8)(g) of the IRO, for enforcement of the same order: ' that the appellant cannot be made to suffer by an act of Court and there was no room fOr a second civil petition under section 22-A (8)(g) of the IRO, 1969 (since repealed) alongside a contempt petition; ' that the alleged grievance of the respondent in both the subsequent cases related to alleged violation of order, dated 30-12-2000 and it was well-settled that where a statute deals with a specific situation, the general provisions on the same subject-matter are not attracted. It was averred that the learned Chairman as Member Single Bench while disposing of the case was causing a serious prejudice to the appellants, no evidence was recorded in Case No,7A(15)/05-L and the evidence recorded in one case was transplanted illegally into another case. It was contended that the procedure adopted by the learned Member Single Bench is against the principles of natural justice and such slipshod disposal of the case is wholly without jurisdiction. It was contended that the Petition bearing No,4A(467)/00-L was disposed of on 20-3-2001 with the observation that it had become infructuous on account of retirement from service of the respondent and that all interlocutory orders were not in the field anymore. With regard to the relief granted to the respondent also there were objections that the same were beyond pleadings.
Overall it was contended that the learned Chairman has not taken into consideration the law and facts of the case properly. We have heard arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellants and have perused record about all the relevant tiles.
2. So far as objection regarding maintainability of Petition No,4A(15)/01-L before this Commission on the ground that contempt petition on the same set of facts was filed simultaneously alleging violation of the order, dated 30-12-2000 passed in Case No,4A(467)/00-L which case had been disposed of as having become infructuous vide order, dated 20-3-2001 to the extent of the respondent, all subsequent proceedings were illegal and without jurisdiction, and that the appellant could not be made to suffer by an act of Court and there was no room for a second civil petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the IRO, 1969 (since repealed) alongside a contempt petition, we are absolutely not in agreement with these contentions of the appellants since the Petition bearing No,4A(15)/01-L whereby the termination order of the respondent was challenged was disposed vide order, dated 4-3-2005 by the learned Chairman on the basis of an offer made by Mr. Abdul Sattar Malik Director Stores and supply of the appellant-establishment who had reportedly played an important role in the settlement of earlier disputes between the trade union against the management another offer was that if the respondent withdrew his petition and approached the establishment, his case would be considered sympathetically so as to redress his grievance. In the light of this offer made by a responsible Director of the appellant-establishment the respondent was directed to move an application with the orders of the learned Court of the Chairman to the establishment and the Board of Directors were directed to decide the matter sympathetically within two months. It is a matter of common sense that on the assurance of one of the Directors of the appellant-establishment, the respondent could not have been asked to withdraw the petition and it was for this reason that the learned Chairman did not dismiss the petition as withdrawn and simply directed the parties that the outcome of the exercise shall be submitted to the Deputy Registrar of this Commission on or before 4-5-2005. It was also made clear that if the respondent's grievance was not redressed, he would be at liberty to move a simple application for resurrection of that case. A study of Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary would show that the measuring of resurrection .Is "a rise from the dead, to revive, backformation, to restore to life, to come to life again" thus, the case filed through Petition bearing No,4A(15)/01-L was not actually disposed of finally. This word was very cautiously used indicating thereby that if the offer made by Mr. Abdul Sattar Malik aforesaid was not found fruitful and the grievance of the respondent was not redressed, the Petition bearing No,4A(15)/01-L could be restored to life meaning thereby that the proceedings will commence therein and with the same order, the Petition No,7(2)/01-L was also disposed of. It goes without saying that the said contempt petition was for violation of order passed in Case No,4A(467)/00-L which was disposed of as infructuous since the respondent had been terminated/retired. At this very stage we would observe answering the objections of the appellants that both the said petitions could not be filed side by side, that the contempt Petition bearing No,7(02)/01-L could not have been decided with Petition No,4A(15)/01-L, the argument is without force. The contempt petition was for violation of order passed in Case No,4A(467)/00-L which had become infructuous whereas the said order was assailed as result of unfair labour practice which was independent cause of action. If the conduct of the Directors/Officers of the appellant-establishment is perused we see that they are by themselves not clear about their orders. They have themselves promoted the respondent as Accountant, the admitted date of superannuation of which post is 65 years and thereafter without assigning any reason, they terminated/ retired the respondent. It is not clear whether it was a retirement on account of his superannuation or was a termination and if so on what ground. The Contempt Petition No,7(02)/01- L was, therefore, very much valid.
3. So far as the Petition bearing No,7A(15)/05-L is concerned, in which order under appeal was passed. It was simply an application for "resurrection" of the Petition bearing Nos.4A(15)/01-L and 7(02)/01-L. It is a vernacular exercise that a fresh number 7A(15)/05-L was assigned to it but as a matter of fact this was an application on behalf of the respondent for the aforesaid purpose and as we have already observed that the Petitions bearing Nos.4A(15)/01-L and 7(02)/01-L were not disposed of finally hence there was no illegality on the part of the learned Chairman in banking on the evidence recorded in Petition bearing No,4A(15)/01-L. On the contrary we would observe that Mr. Abdul Sattar Malik who had left a very good impression with regard to his efforts for bringing peace to the appellant-industry was either made an instrumental by the other officers of the establishment or he himself tried to get the petition disposed of by making an offer. If he could not get the grievance of the respondent redressed, and which was not known to the said Directors and others, he would not have made such an offer because if the claim of the respondent was absolutely unlawful, unjustified then there should not have been any effort for reconciliation for the redressal of his grievance. It clearly indicates that either he made that offer to frustrate the proceedings and if not, he was used as instrumental to achieve this end by the other responsible people and perhaps under this feeling the learned Chairman very intelligently did not dispose of the petition and simply held the proceedings in abeyance which is also indicative of the direction to the parties to, submit the outcome of the exercise to the Deputy Registrar of this Commission on or before a certain date recorded in the order and for the same reasons the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that evidence recorded in another case cannot be transplanted into the other one, is not sustainable as we have already observed candidly that the Petition bearing No,7A(15)/05-L was not a fresh petition and it was a device to revive the earlier Petitions bearing Nos.4A(15)/01-L and 7(02)/01-L. It is proved from the fact that the respondent's application was not given any number and he had in fact mentioned the numbers of the aforesaid two petitions namely Petitions bearing Nos.4A(15)/01-L and 7(02)/01-L and if any number was assigned to it, it was a vernacular exercise.
4. The learned Chairman has banked upon the evidence recorded in Petition bearing No,4A(15)/01- L whereby one Abdul Aziz Bhatti Executive Officer of the appellant-establishment appeared as R.W.2 and stated that letter of retirement was issued to the respondent on 23-12-2000 through him but he did not deliver it to the respondent himself. He, however, admitted correct that the letter of retirement was not delivered to the respondent on 1-1-2000 or 2-1-2000 as it was in fact posted/dispatched to him through registered post on 3-1-2000. If this is so, the appellant could have restrained themselves from issuing the said letter when an order granting interim relief to the respondent had been received by them. The learned Chairman has rightly observed that the Personnel Manager namely Mr. Saeed Azhar was present in the Court of the learned Chairman on 30-12-2000 when the interim restrain order was passed and he never pointed out that the respondent had been retired/terminated from service w,e,f, 23-12-2000 and thereafter the case was fixed for 19-1-2000 and then to 20-3-2001 but nothing was informed about the respondent in this regard which indicates that the appellants had been playing hide and seek with the matter and they wanted to deprive the respondent of his legal right which was granted to him by them without any justification and to differ the proceedings one way or the other and that is why as a last resort, Mr. Abdul Sattar Malik, Director was inducted to frustrate the proceedings. So far as the argument that the Case bearing No,4A(467)/00-L had been disposed as infructuous is concerned, it has no beating as vide Petition bearing No,4A(15)/01-L, the respondent has independently challenged the impugned termination/retirement on the basis of his trade union activities and victimization on account of acts of unfair labour practice.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the order under appeal is unexceptionable and suffers form no illegality or misreading or non-reading of evidence and does not suffer from any legal infirmities. We are, therefore, not inclined to admit this appeal for regular hearing even and the same is therefore, dismissed in limine. File be consigned to record.