' DR. QAMMARUDDIN BOHRA, MEMBER.--- This petition filed under section 54(e) read with Section 57(2)(c) of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 by the applicant against the respondents along with application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Function) Regulations, 1973 for stay order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is employed with respondents Bank and is performing his duties honestly and dedication without any sort of complaint since 25-02-1978.
Thereafter he was promoted as Assistant and is Finance Secretary and Deputy General Secretary of Allied Bank Workers Federation of Pakistan and Allied Bank Labour Union of Pakistan respectively.
The Allied Bank Workers Federation of Pakistan is certified as CBA for the workmen employed in the respondents establishment. The respondents bank is a largest bank in the country having branches in all the provinces whereas the respondent No,2 is responsible in respect of Human Resources and Industrial Relations of the establishment as such is implementing the policies of the Bank whereas the respondent No,3 is responsible of the regional affairs. Petitioner being office bearers of the Federation/Union is involved in the trade union activities/affairs to resolve the disputes and problems of the workers at the national level as well as regional level, therefore the respondents are not happy with him and always attempted to victimize the activity of petitioner under the garb of so called arbitrary fabricated allegations. It is alleged that respondents informed the petitioner vide letter bearing No,REF:HRG/(SFA)/2015/3947 dated 26-10-2015 that the petitioner shall retire from service with effect from 08-12-2015 after attaining the age of superannuation as such after received the letter, the petitioner personally meet the respondents management and explain about his date of birth and also given the copy of CNIC, Birth Certificate and copy of certificate issued by the area Tehsildar of the native area of the petitioner but the respondents not agreed with his contentions wherein the petitioner date of birth is 09-08-1958 and he will be retired from his service in accordance with date of birth as on 08-08-2018. The respondents have become more annoyed and threatened the petitioner with direction to disassociated to the trade union activities in future and in case, the petitioner and others not yield the desire demand of the respondents management they would be made target rather example for the others including dispensing with the services or retire and upon not yielding/refusing the same the above mentioned however, the very act of the respondents is indicative of the fact that it is every apprehension that the respondents would in a position to implement the threats as apprehended by awarding any punishment including termination, dismissal, retrenchment, discharge/dislodge or retirement the services etc. Just to cause harm to the applicant on the one hand and to crush the trade union on the other hand due to their lawful trade union activities as office bearer of the Federation and union, This act of respondent's amount to unfair labour practice. Hence this petition.
3. Respondents were served and they filed comments taking legal objections that the petition is not maintainable in view of the fact that no trade union activities has been pleaded or pointed out and issuance of retirement letter of petitioner after attaining the age of superannuation. The correction and change in his date of birth at the eve of retirement this petition is therefore mala fide. The petitioner filed the instant petition wherein no allegation of unfair labour practice has been made out in this petition and the respondents have denied the allegations of unfair labour practice stating that Allied Bank Workers Federation of Pakistan is Collective Bargaining Agent in the respondent Bank and the petitioner claims that he is office bearers of the said Federation as well as Allied Bank Labour Union but the fact is that he is not principle office bearer as they are Chairman, President and General Secretary and even then he has not pointed out his trade union activities which could have given rise to apprehension of commission of any act of unfair labour practice, The respondents management has cordial relations with the CBA Federation which is evident from the fact that current Memorandum of Settlement was executed. They have stated that the applicant is do ex-military soldier of Pakistan Amy as he was employed by Pakistan Army from 09-12-1972 to 07-09-1977 and at the time of his 'appointment in the respondents Bank he submitted National Identity Card and job application forms wherein date of birth was mentioned as 09-10-1955 as per discharge certificate issued by the Pakistan Army. His date of birth is 09.12.1954 and as per employment documents submitted by him his date of birth is 09-10-1955.
These dates of consequential indicate that as per record of the Pakistan Army, he should retired on 08-12-2014. It is further alleged that on 05-04-1984 petitioner again submitted certificate of Board of Secondary Education Karachi and IN1C with request for change of date of his birth i.e, 09-12-1955 instead of 09-10-1955 and same was accepted by respondents Bank and date of birth was recorded as 09-12-1955. Copy of CNIC enclosed at page 19 of the petition as Annex A/5 issued on 12-02-2015 and as per document by the Naib Tehsildar Chakwal documents issued in 2015 and qua the said documents the applicant never made any application for change of his date of birth. The respondents issued retirement letter of petitioner is legal and valid in the eyes of law. They have prayed for dismissal of the petition.
4. I have heard the arguments of the Labour Representative for petitioner and counsel for respondents on legal objections/stay application and main petition at some length. They reiterated the facts as stated in the petition and reply statements/legal objections with addition by Labour Representative for petitioner that let evidence be recorded and thereafter legal objections along with main petition be disposed of.
5. I have also gone through the pleadings of the parties and material on record.
6. At the very outset this Bench of Commission don't agree with the Labour Representative for the petitioner that first evidence is to be recorded and then matter be disposed off.
7. First of all this Bench of Commission for assuming the jurisdiction to trial the matter is dependent upon a prima facie 'ease of unfair labour practice but the facts narrated in the petition do not constitute a case of unfair labour practice. The jurisdiction of the Commission is confined to the cases squarely falling within the scope of section 31 of IRA, 2012 and nothing beyond. It implies that in cases of victimization for any reason, other than the trade union activities, this Commission will have no jurisdiction. In the present petition no trade union activities whatsoever have been mentioned to form the basis of the claim of unfair labour practice. The apprehended unfair labour practice has also not been specified except bald statement of apprehension, as such the petition does not fulfill the requirements of section 54 (e) of the IRA, 2012.
8. From the perusal of petition it reveals that there is nothing to indicate that the applicant had been discriminated in respect of his retirement and it is not denied that the discrimination, if any, must relate to the trade union activities of the person concerned in case he needs interference of this Commission in terms of section 31(c) of the IRA, 2012. Reliance is placed on 1988 PLC (sic) and 1992 PLC 447. Moreover, it is right and prerogative of an employer to take action against a delinquent employee and retired from service after attaining the age of superannuation according to documents provided at the time of initial appointment. Admittedly the petitioner was in service of Pakistan Army from 09-12-1972 to 07-09-1977 and at the time of his appointment in the respondents Bank he provided National Identity Card and job application forms wherein date of birth was mentioned as 09-10-1955 as per discharge certificate issued by Pakistan Army. His date of birth is 09-12-1954 and as per employment documents submitted by petitioner with this petition show his date of birth as 09-10-1955. As per record of Pakistan Army, the petitioner should retired from service on 08-12-2014 after attaining the age of superannuation but in the present petition he alleged that his date of birth is 09-08-1958 and he will reach to the age of retirement on 08-08- 2018. On face of it seems to be false as date of birth i.e, 1958 it is not possible that he joined Pakistan Army on 09-12-1972 at the age of 14 years whereas date of birth is taken as 09-12-1954 that means when he joined service in Pakistan Army he was 18 years of age which justified.
9. Apart from above, admittedly the petitioner on 05-04-1984 submitted certificate of Board of Secondary Education Karachi and NIC to the respondents management with the request to chance of his date of birth as 09-12-1955 instead of 09-10-1955. The request of the petitioner was accepted by the respondents Bank and date of birth was recorded as 09-12-1955 whereas present petition in support of this claim i.e, date of birth is 1958 file copy of CNIC (Annex-A/5) which has been issued on 12-02-2015 and also documents issued by Naib Tehsildar Chakwal in 2015. Both documents pertaining to the year 2015 and whereas he joined the service of respondents Bank on 25-02-1978 shown his date of birth is 09-10-1955 and he also moved application to the respondents Bank on 05-04-1984 for correction of his date of birth from 09-10-1954 to 09-12-1955 which was corrected by the respondents. Then he could have got correction of birth date as 09-08-1958. All these show mala fide on the part of petitioner in filing this petition. The respondents cannot be said to be committing acts of unfair labour practice and accordingly on merits also the applicant has no case. Reliance in this respect is placed on 2004 TD (Labour) 158 and 2008 PLC 251.
10. In these circumstances cited above, I am of the considered view that petitioner has failed to establish a case of unfair labour practice. -Accordingly not only stay application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 is dismissed as well as the main petition also stands dismissed.