DECISION ' I propose to dispose of three revision applications by this single Decision as the applicants and the points of facts and law in all the three revision applications are the same.
2. I have heard Mr. Muhammad Hamayoon, learned Advocate for the applicants and Mr. Abdul Majeed, learned Representative for the respondents and have also gone through the record and proceedings of the cases.
3. The brief facts are that the respondents were admittedly employed as workmen by the applicants whose services were terminated on 2-8-1989, allegedly on account of the abolition of their posts due to reorganization. The respondents filed separate complaints under section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, against the applicants, on which notice was issued to the applicants. After hearing the respondents the learned Presiding Officer ordered the issuance of process against the applicants, vide his orders, dated 20-9-1990. The applicants have moved these applications praying this Tribunal to examine, in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal, the legality, correctness and propriety of the impugned order.
4. The respondents have filed the complaints alleging therein that the applicants had terminated their services in violation of section 8-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which is an offence punishable under section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. To appreciate the respective contentions of the parties, it is necessary to reproduce section 8-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which reads as under:-- "Section 8-A. Transfer, etc., of office of trade union during pendency of application for registration.- -Save with the prior permission of the Registrar, no officer of a trade union of workmen shall be transferred, discharged, dismissed or otherwise punished during the pendency of an application for registration of the trade union with the Registrar, provided that the union has notified the names of the officers to the employer in writing."
' The main contention of Mr. Muhammad Humayoon, the learned Advocate for the applicants, is that the services of the respondents were terminated not by way of punishment, but, due to reorganization which does not amount to contravention of section 8-A of I.R.O., 1969. He has relied upon certain Case-Law in support of his contention that section 8-A contemplates transfer, discharge or dismissal -of a workman by 'way of punishment and not otherwise.
' On the other hand, Mr. Abdul Majeed, learned Representative for the respondents contends that their services have been terminated by way of punishment because of their trade union activities.
Admittedly, the respondents are office-bearers of the trade union which was formed on 3-3-1989.
The application for registration was filed before the Registrar Trade Unions and the registration was allowed on 29-8-1989; whereas the respondents were removed from service during the pendency of this application viz. On 2-8-1989.
6. The question as to whether the respondents were removed from service because of bona fide re-organization or by way of punishment by taking refuge behind the cloak of re-organization is a question of fact which can only be determined after the parties lead evidence. The Law relied upon by parties can be applied only after the facts are determined. Therefore, I need not discuss the Law relied upon by both the parties at this stage.
7. Admittedly the respondents have also filed applications under section 25-A of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for their reinstatement. Mr. Muhammad Humayoon has produced admission of the respondents in their statements in these proceedings. The filing of application under section 25-A, I.R.O., 1969, would not debar the respondent from invoking section 53 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, if there is contravention of section 8-A of I.R.O., 1969. The admission, if any, made by the parties in some other proceedings cannot be taken into consideration unless the parties are confronted with their statements in previous proceedings and are given a chance to explain. Therefore, these revision applications are premature. There is nothing illegal or improper in the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court who appears to have formed the opinion that a prima facie case is made out against the applicants. I find no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and, therefore, dismiss these revision applications.