' By office order dated 18-2-1989 of the respondent, Maqsood Ahmad petitioner has been reverted from the post of Junior Technician to the post of Helper. The reversion order reads:-- "On review of the case of promotion from the post of Helper BPS-5 to the post of Junior Technician (Electrical Repair) keeping in view the qualifications/experience, the following reversions/promotions arc hereby ordered with immediate effect.
(1) Mr. Muhammad Maqsood Ahmed Masoomi, Junior Technician BPS- 5 is hereby reverted to the post of helper.
(2) Mr. Muhammad Tariq, Helper is hereby promoted as Junior Technician (Electrical repair)."
2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged his reversion by filing the present petition against the respondent under section 22-A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 with an application under Regulation 32 of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, asserting that he was senior to Muhammad Tariq promotee and that he had been discriminated on account of his trade union affairs, resulting in his reversion. The reversion was also stated to have been made contrary to the undertaking given by the respondents in a previously instituted petition (bearing No, 4-A(%)/88-L) by the petitioner, withdrawn in view of the statement of the respondent that he shall deal with the petitioner's case strictly in accordance with law and rules of the WAPDA.
3. In the comments it was maintained that the petitioner's reversion had no link with his trade union activities, if any, and that the matter in issue, relating to the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner, the Commission had no jurisdiction to hear and entertain the petition.
4. I have heard at length learned counsel for the parties in the light of the material on the file and the case-law cited at the bar.
5. The post under reference is designated as Junior Technician (Electrical Repair). The petitioner was previously promoted to this post but subsequently he was reverted to his initial post vide impugned reversion order and Muhammad Tariq was promoted and substituted by the petitioner.
Muhammad Tariq possesses two years diploma in Electrical Trade from Pak German Technical Training Centre, Lahore. He is better qualified and suitable for the job of Junior Technician (Electrical Repair) as against the petitioner, who is stated to have attained the proficiency in the mechanical trade. He possesses no qualification or experience making him eligible for the post of Junior Technician (Electrical Repair). The petitioner possesses no qualification or experience on this side. The reversion order appears to have been made for this reason, having nothing to do with his trade union activities, if any. The respondent in collusion with the rival union is alleged to have acted unfairly with the petitioner by reverting him and promoting Muhammad Tariq junior to the petitioner to the post of Junior Technician and that too contrary to the undertaking given by the respondent in the abovementioned previously instituted petition by the petitioner in which an undertaking was given to the effect that the respondent shall deal with the petitioner's matter strictly in accordance with law and rules of the WAPDA. It is interesting to note that the axe is said to have fallen on the petitioner as a measure of victimization at the instance of the rival union.
Strangely enough, there is no rival union enjoying the blessings of the respondent. When the attention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was drawn to this fact, he had no reply to make.
The ground of victimization on account of trade union activities is a serious charge and requires to be proved properly. The petitioner has not cited specific instances and events linked with the unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents. A vague and general statement is hardly sufficient.
It must be supported by some instance either relating to their activities in connection with the union or of annoyance to the management. Muzaffar Hussain and others v. Batala Engineering Company (Pak) Limited, Lahore 1969 PLC 238 citation (D). The learned counsel for the petitioner also attempted to argue that the petitioner was previously promoted but subsequently he was replaced by Muhammad Tariq. This discrimination on the part of the respondent amounts to unfair labour practice. The submission of the learned counsel is without substance. Muhammad Tariq was promoted on account of his suitability for the post and not for the petitioner's participation in the union matters. The learned counsel for the petitioner further maintained that the petitioner was not served with show-cause notice and no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him which prejudiced the petitioner's cause. To substantiate the pleas, he relied on 1981 SCM R 523 and 1983 PLC (C.S.) 47.1 have gone through these rulings and to my mind these rulings are quite distinguishable and have no relevancy with the point in controversy. These authorities do not advance the petitioner's case and are of no help to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner also urged that in the previously instituted Petition No, 4-A(96)/88-L, subsequently withdrawn in view of the statements of the parties, the respondent had given an undertaking to the effect that the matter of the petitioner shall be dealt with strictly in accordance with law and rules of the WAPDA, but the respondent contrary to his undertaking made the impugned order in deviation of the law on the point and reverted the petitioner. This reversion, according to the learned counsel, amounts to contempt of Court order dated 24-11-1988 made in Petition No, 4-A(96)/88-L. The submission of the learned counsel cannot be attended to at this stage because the contempt proceedings are already pending adjudication before this forum, in which the respondent is accused of having flouted the Court order dated 24-11-1988.
5. There is yet another aspect of the case which requires consideration. The petitioner was earlier promoted to the post of Junior Technician, till further orders' and when the suitable person became available to the department, the reversion order was made and the petitioner was reverted to his initial post of helper and Muhammad Tariq possessing the required qualification and experience on the electrical side, was promoted to the post of Junior Electrician (Electrical Repair). The reversion of the petitioner relates to his terms and conditions of service. It hardly attracts the jurisdiction of the Commission. The relevant portion of a decision in this respect given by a Full Bench of the Commission in National Motors v. Muhammad Hanif 1987 PLC 547 is reproduced below:-- "It is necessary to state clearly the duties and functions of the Commission in matters arising out of disciplinary actions against workers. In such matters the National Industrial Relations Commission does not sit in judgment over the action of management against workers as an appellate forum.
The Commission is not concerned with the deficiency if any, of law or fact in the action and will not set aside the management's decision merely upon a finding of error in the procedures adopted or of want of sufficiency of evidence upon which the action proceeds. Nor will the Commission interfere only because the action requires correction. That may be the function of forum acting under section 25-A of the I.R.O.
1969. The Commission's jurisdiction is and as has rightly been invoked in this case under clause (g) of subsection (8) of section 22-A of the I.R.O. 1969, upon allegation of unfair labour practice. In proceedings under this clause, the Commission has to examine, if the management was motivated by any of the considerations enumerated in section 15(1). For this purpose, the Commission may also scrutinize, if ' the management's action was based upon no evidence or upon misreading of evidence or was perverse to the evidence or was in colorable exercise of power. For, that, if established, will detract from the bona fides of the management and may lend credibility to the allegation of unfair act. But by itself this will not be sufficient for reaching a finding of unfair act unless one or more of the ingredients of section 15, which sets out what constitutes unfair labour practice on the part of employer, stands proved independently by factual or circumstantial evidence. The examination of management's action is, therefore, only collateral, and a mere finding against the correctness of the action will not per se establish unfair labor practice within the meaning of section 15."
6. In view of what has gone above, it follows that the petitioner has failed to disclose a proper cause of action and the petition is liable to dismissal. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. The stay application also meets the same fate. The status quo dated 19-3-1989, is vacated.