BASHIR AHMED MEMON (MEMBER).--- The present petition was brought by the petitioner on 3-12- 2005 under section 49(4) (e) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 2002 and the same was dismissed in limine vide order dated 6-12-2005 passed by this Bench of Commission as having no jurisdiction to this Commission.
2. On appeal Full Bench of this Commission vide its order dated 12-6-2006 set aside the order dated 6-12-2005 passed by this Bench of Commission and declared that this Bench of Commission was fully competent having the jurisdiction to entertain the petition and remanded the case to this Bench of Commission,
3. Accordingly this case was received by this Bench of Commission on 22-6-2006 and notice was sent to the parties. On 29-7- 2006 ' Mr. S.M. Iqbal, Advocate tiled his power on behalf of respondents and also filed comments with preliminary legal objections on main petition and counter affidavit on stay application and vide order dated 7-4- 2007 this Bench of Commission directed to decide the matter on merits and directed the petitioner to file his affidavit-in-evidence. Accordingly the same was filed by the petitioner on 12-9-2007 and the petitioner was cross-examined on 14-01- 2009 and thereafter the respondents were directed to file their affidavit-in-evidence and on behalf of respondents one Sqn. Ldr. (R) Abdul Majeed filed his affidavit-in-evidence and the matter was adjourned for his cross-examination but the same could not be made on one or other pretext and finally the respondents' counsel submitted an application on 19-9-2012 for expedite disposal of the case without their affidavit-in-evidence and thereafter the parties were directed to submit their arguments.
4. On 24-9-2012 the arguments of Mr. S.M, Iqbal, learned' counsel for the respondents were heard and the matter was fixed for orders and the learned counsel for the petitioner was directed to submit his arguments before the date of order.
5. It is the case of petitioner that he was apprehending an act of unfair labour practice on the part of respondents due to his trade union activities and apprehending such act of unfair labour practice he has filed present petition and in his affidavit-in-evidence he has fully corroborated the facts of case which he has already mentioned in his petition and has denied the averments made by the respondents in their written statement as well as counter affidavit. It has been stated that during the inquiry which was conducted against the petitioner the management has fully ignored the information given by the petitioner regarding institution of present petition and had created the reason for his dismissal. It has been further stated that the petitioner was not given full chance to face his inquiry and the Enquiry Officer without applying his judicial mind has recommended for his termination.
6. Learned counsel for' the respondents while arguing the matter submitted that admittedly the petitioner was dismissed from service on 11-3-2006 and no stay was under operation but no any application for amending the petition was filed. This Bench of Commission is only vested with the jurisdiction in cases of apprehended acts of unfair labour practice and when any action is taken right or wrong this Bench of Commission is not vested with any jurisdiction.
7. I have considered the arguments and have gone through the pleadings of the parties and material placed on record.
8. In his cross-examination the petitioner has admitted that:---"It is correct that Shaheen Foundation is a charitable Trust of Air Force and the Shaheen Airport ' Services is one of the Unit of Shaheen Foundation."
He further admitted that: "A case bearing No,12(22)/2003 was filed by Shaheen Airport Services Hard Workers Union and it was dismissed by the Full Bench on 23-10-2003, then a writ petition was filed before the Honourable Lahore High Court, which too was dismissed and such orders have been placed before this Bench of Commission at Pages-F/1 and F/2."
The petitioner further admitted that: "One Naveed Iqbal, Electrical Mechanic had also filed a case before this Court and the same was also dismissed. Such order is also available on record as Annex.G."
9. Petitioner admits service of notice dated 3-10-2005 regarding allegation of theft. He also admits conducting inquiry against him and to have signed the minutes of inquiry. The petitioner further admits that he was served with dismissal letter dated 11-3-2006 and notice regarding petition filed by him before this Bench of Commission was issued on 13-3-2006 and the same was served upon the respondents on 15-3-2006. He admits that no any worker or office-bearer has right to commit theft. He admits that "It was correct that he was removed from service on the allegation of theft but voluntary stated that it was a planted case."
10.' It is a case of respondents that since the petitioner had committed theft and was searched by Security Guard and on such information he was served with show-cause notice and after holding domestic inquiry and relying upon the findings of Enquiry Office the petitioner was dismissed from service, The petitioner also admits that he was dismissed from service vide order dated 11-3-2006 and notice regarding institution of present petition was issued by this Bench of Commission and the same was received by the 'respondents on 15-3-2006, when the petitioner was already removed from service before receipt of notice by the respondents the petition in the present form is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
In view of above discussed facts and circumstances I am of the considered opinion that at the time of filing of present petition the petitioner was not in the employment of respondents, as such