' Petitioner Mian Pervaiz Akhter, Superintendent claims to be employed "on sports basis to play Cricket in the HBFC Cricket Team and to hold the position is one of the terms and conditions of his employment". He was named "Captain in various domestic tournaments on the basis of his merit".
He claims to be a workman and Deputy General Secretary of the HBFC Staff Union. It is alleged that petitioner was appointed Captain of the cricket team by Chairman Sports Committee vide Office Order No, 353, dated 4-9-1989. But "as a measure of victimization the respondents in connivance with each other have been taking steps to victimise the members of HBFC Staff Union. The respondent No, 2, once again pressurised respondent No, 1 to appoint a member of his union namely Mr. Sarfraz Azam as the Captain". Consequently respondent No, 1 appointed respondent No, 3 as Captain of HBFC Cricket Team vide Office Order No, 812, dated 22-3-1990, which order states that respondent No, 3 was named as Captain on the decision of the Sports Committee. The petitioner challenges the existence of any such decision and prays that respondents be directed not to commit further acts of unfair labour practice, and not to victimise the petitioner in respect of his right to lead the HBFC Cricket Team as a Captain. He further seeks quashment of impugned order dated 22-3-1990.
2. I have had the respondents submit their written statement, and parties their arguments on maintainability of the petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner addressed oral arguments.
Learned Member Lahore had earlier suspended the operation of impugned order on 14-4-1990 and directed the parties to appear before learned Member I, when learned Member-I left his charge this file was assigned to me.
3. This petition is not maintainable before the Commission because according to section 22-A(8)
(g), the Commission can deal with cases of unfair labour practice on the part of employer in the manner laid down under section 25-A or section 34 or in such other way as may be prescribed
4. This obviously is not a case of infringement of section 34 because neither the appellant nor admittedly the staff union occupy the status of CBA which is a pre-condition to bringing the case under section 34. Similarly since no rig guaranteed to the petitioner by any law, settlement or award has been infrin this is also not a case of violation of section 25 (ibid). This is also not a likely unfair labour practice which could fall under the jurisdiction De Commission being a case to be dealt with. "in such other way prescribed" because Regulation 32(1) of the NIRC (Procedure and Functions)' Regulations, 1973, concerns itself with reinstatement of a workman after punishment has been awarded for unfair labour practice. The present case obviously seeks no such remedy.
Regulation 32(2) (ibid) relates to unfair labour practices which are likely to occur and gives prohibitory powers where an unfair labour practice is likely to occur. In this case the impugned order having already been passed, the so-called "unfair labour practice" had already occurred. The ad' interim order dated 14-4-1990 could not therefore have been legally passed.
5. But, is appointing respondent No, 3, as a Captain of the Cricket Team, an unfair labour practice on the part of employer?
6. Section 15(1) gives various kinds of unfair labour practice on the part of employer as denoted by various clauses thereof. The only clause vigorously pressed into service is clause (c) which is reproduced below:- "15(1)--No employer shall
(a) ...........
(b) ...........
(c) discriminate against any person in regard to any employment, promotion, condition of employment or working condition on the ground that such person is or is not, a member or officer of a trade union, or"
Now, it was not the term or condition of employment of the petitioner, that he shall be appointed captain of the cricket team. There was thus no question of his being discriminated in respect of his employment, promotion, condition of employment or work. If it is true that he was appointed on 'sports basis', even then that employment did not carry any stipulation to be appointed Captain of the Team, and no unfair labour practice was committed per se.
7. The petition being not maintainable is rejected under Order 7, Rule 11(d), C.P.C.
Petition rejected.