' Syed Suleman Shah, Lineman Grade-I, G-7, Operation Sub-Division, Islamabad retired from service with effect from 31-3-1988. After the retirement, his son Farhat Abbas petitioner No, 1 was appointed as Assistant Lineman against the .WAPDA employees son's quota by office order dated 12-10-1980.
A quarter No, 3A, G-7/4, WAPDA Colony, Islamabad was allotted in the name of Syed Suleman Shah.
The allottee moved various applications to the Authority for allotment of the quarter in the name of the petitioner from the employees son's quota but the applications remained pending. Ultimately, the quarter was allotted to one Muqarab Khan, Lineman-I on the basis of seniority by office order dated 12-5-1988 (Annexure 'F') of Director (Administration), Office of Chairman; Area Electricity Board, Islamabad, who is respondent No, 2 in this petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order by way of filing petition under section 22- A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969, accompanied by an application under Regulation 32 of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions)
Regulations, 1973, against the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Islamabad and Director, (Administration), Office of Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Islamabad, respondents with the prayer that the impugned order dated 12-5-1988, be set aside with direction to the respondents to allot the quarter in question' to the petitioner. The petitioner claimed to have been discriminated and refused allotment for no other reason but on account of his trade union activities as member and office-bearer .Of the Pakistan WAPDA Labour Union. He also blamed the rival union namely Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Electric Central Labour Union, instrumental in the refusal of the allotment of the quarter to the petitioner. The action on the part of the respondents was termed as oppressive, mala fide, vindictive, unjust and unlawful amounting to unfair labour practice.
2. In the parawise comments furnished on behalf of the Authority, the petition was resisted on a number of grounds, legal as well as factual.
3. Initially the petition was filed by two petitioners namely Farhat Abbas and Zafar Iqbal, but subsequently the name of Zafar Iqbal was deleted from the panel of the petitioners by order of the Commission dated 17-74991.
4. The sole question requiring consideration would be, how far the petitioner has succeeded to prove the allegations of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents Authority?
5. In the instant case, the hammer is alleged to have fallen on the petitioner, firstly, due to his participation in trade union actvities as member and office-bearer of Pakistan WAPDA Labour Union and secondly, on account of his refusal to abide by the wishes of the Authority to abandon his union and join the rival union namely, Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Electric Central Labour Union. In support of the allegation, the petitioner appeared in the witness-box as P.W.1 and stated that after retirement, his father could retain the quarter for six months period. He could also retain it for one year after the beginning of his L.P.R. He also stated that the allotment has been denied to him on account of his trade union activities. He is the office-bearer of Pakistan WAPDA Labour Union besides being the General Secretary of F-8 Sub-Division of Pakistan WAPDA Labour Union. He further stated that members of Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Electric Central Labour Union are given preference over him in respect of allotment and that the said facility is being refused to him for his participation in union affairs. It is in his cross-examination that Sultan Ahmad, Muhammad Mustkeem, Muhammad Khurshid, Muhammad Aslam and Muhammad Ramzan etc. Members of the rival union have been given better treatment with regard to allotment facilities. He admitted that except Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Mustkeem, the remaining employees, are senior to him. Azmat Elahi, Assistant Lineman, WAPDA, Islamabad, appeared on behalf of the petitioner as P.W. 2 and stated that Muhammad Ramzan, Muhammad Mustkeem, Muhammad Haneef, Muhammad Aslam, Badshah Wahid, and Manzoor-ul-Haq were allotted quarters from the employees sons' quota. It is in cross-examination that 20% quota is reserved for the Chairman. The above-named employees were allotted quarters out of the employees sons' quota and not from the Chairman's discretionary quota. As against this, Amjad Zaman, Deputy Director (Legal), WAPDA, Islamabad appeared on behalf of the Authority as R.W.1 and stated that after retirement, Syed Suleman Shah was repeatedly asked through notices to vacate the quarter under reference but he declined to do so. The quarter was subsequently allotted to Lineman, Mmarab Khan in May, 1988.
The quarter is at. Present in occupation of the petitioner. No quota is fixed for residential accommodation of ex-employees of the department. The allotment in the name of Muqarab Khan, Lineman has been made by the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Islamabad, in the light of the understanding dated 22-10-1984 between the Authority and the Union. He further stated that 20% quota is fixed and placed at the disposal of respondent No, 1, whereas the remaining allotment is made on the basis of seniority. The service of notice of ejectment on the petitioner involves no element of unfair labour practice. It is in his cross-examination that almost all the employees of WAPDA are connected with one union or the other directly or indirectly. The petitioner may be one of the members of any such union. He also stated that Shireen Khan, Muhammad Ismail, Babar Sultan, Nazir Hussain Shah, Habib Khan and Fazal Ahmad etc. Are ex-employees of WAPDA. Some of them have gone on retirement and some of them have since expired. Some of the quarters retained by these employees have been allotted to their sons etc. Who have got employment in WAPDA against the quota of employees' sons. He denied the suggestion that the petitioner has been discriminated on account of his trade union activities at the instigation of Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Electric Central Labour Union. He expressed ignorance that the petitioner is an office-bearer of WAPDA Labour Union and that he has been working for the promotion of this union.
' Nazar Hussain, Senior Clerk, Civil Division WAPDA, Islamabad and AbduLAziz, Establishment Assistant, Office.Of the Chairman, Area Electricity Board, Islamabad were examined as C.W.1 and C.W.2 respectively. C.W. 1 stated that he is concerned with the allotment of quarters to the WAPDA employees working in the Civil Division. The petitioner has no connection with this Division. There is no WAPDA employees' sons quota but allotments have been made to WAPDA employees' sons in certain cases. C.W. 2 stated that 20% quota is fixed for the Chairman and he can allot a quarter out of this quota. The allotment, he added, can be made out of the quota reserved for the Chairman to the son of an employee but he cannot do so in respect of an outsider i.e, a person not employed in the Area Electricity Board, WAPDA, in the Region of Islamabad.
6. The stand taken by the Authority is that father of the petitioner after retirement, could retain the residential accommodation for the entire period of L.P.R. Plus two months thereafter in the light of the procedure laid down by the Authority vide its Memorandum DIR/SC (Estates) 10/77/3345/3905, dated 13-2-1979 and AD(Estates) 060012/8/29233-30013,-dated 13-3-1984 (Annexures R-1 and R-2).
After the expiry of the prescribed period, the allottee was served with various notices to vacate the quarter but he declined to do so. Ultimately, the quarter was allotted to Lineman, Muqarab Khan on seniority basis vide office order dated 12-5-1988. The stand taken by the Authority gains strength from the sole witness of the Authority namely, Amjad Zaman (R.W.1) Deputy Director (Legal), WAPDA, Islamabad. In the circumstances, I am satisfied that action of the Authority was not mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. It cannot be faulted either in law or discretion. The oral assertion made on behalf of the petitioner and in the absence of proof of specific supporting circumstance that the Authority was annoyed with the petitioner on account of his participation in trade union activities and that the applications of the father of the petitioner for allotment of quarter remained pending and unattended in consequence of that annoyance cannot be considered to be sufficient evidence of unfair labour practice. The onus of proof was on the petitioner but he has not discharged the same. He has not given details of his trade union activities which may have annoyed the Authority. He has made general and sweeping allegation that he is an active trade unionist on account of which he is suffering at the hands of the Authority. Without details showing the nature of trade union activities carried out by him, it would not be possible to visualise the severity of action of the Authority.
Normally an ordinary member of a trade union is not expected to take part in such trade union activities as may cause annoyance to the employer. Besides the petitioner has not produced anything to show that he is a member of the union, muchless an active member. The allegation has not been satisfactorily proved. It has been held by the Commission in a number of cases that victimisation is a serious charge by an employee against an employer, and therefore, must be properly and adequately pleaded giving all particulars upon which the charge is based to enable the employer to fully meet them. The charge must not be vague or indefinite. Muhammad Nawaz v.
General Manager (Planning), WAPDA, Lahore and another 1994 PLC 140 (National Industrial Relations Commission).
' In the case of Nazar Muhammad, General Manager, TIP, Haripur and another v. Ghulam Asghar and 4 others reported in 1988 PLC 923 (National Industrial Relations Commission), the following observations were made: "The evidence on this point which was produced by the petitioners was only oral which stands denied by the oral testimony of Pervez who also gave a different explanations for the action taken by the Management against the petitioners. The petitioners did not cite any specific instance involving themselves to show that the management had an axe to grind against them because of their trade union activity. All that they said was that the action was on account of their being in Nawaz Jadoon Group which was not liked by the management. However, they did not cite any specific instance to support any such dislike. Nawaz Jadoon himself in his evidence did not cite any fact or instance to support the assertion that the management was unfavourably disposed towards his group bare allegations in the absence of specific act and circumstance are not sufficient to establish unfair labour practice."
' In reaching the aforesaid conclusion, reliance was placed on Muzaffar Hussain and others v.
Batala Engineering Company (Pak.) Ltd., Lahore 1969 PLC 238; Muhammad Farooq v. Messrs Iqbal Silk Mills Ltd., Karachi 1969 PLC 439; Messrs Iqbal Silk Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Mahmood Mian 1969 PLC 691; Muhammad Hussain v. Messrs United Distributors Ltd. 1974 PLC 69; Jubilee Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., Karachi v. Bladar Khan and 8 others 1975 PLC 24 and National Bank of Pakistan Peoples' Federation v. National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad 1975 PLC 56.
' In another case titled 'Peer Muhammad v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited 1992 PLC 477 page 482 (National Industrial Relations Commission), which was filed by the petitioner Peer Muhammad in consequence of the refusal on the part of the management to make necessary 'correction in his date of birth, it was observed by the learned Chairman of the Commission: "The fact that the petitioner was a hard bargainer or that he succeeded in having a payment of Rs,80 jam made to the workers of the company, does not furnish any basis to hold that the respondents entertained a grudge against the petitioner or had any malice against him for this reason. The grounds urged for holding that respondent's act falls within the mischief of the law of unfair labour practice, are not tenable."
7. Having held that the petitioner had not been able to prove a case of unfair labour practice against the Authority and plea of unfair labour practice remains unproved, I find myself in agreement with learned counsel for the Authority that this Commission has no jurisdiction to intervene and give relief to the petitioner. It is not denied that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Commission is dependent upon a prima facie case of unfair labour practice and in cases where the accusation remains unproved and action of the management is found just and legal, jurisdiction of the Commission is clearly ousted. The following observations were made by the Commission in Arshad Mahmood v. Factory Manager, Gulshan Carpet Industries Ltd., Lahore 1994 PLC 35: "The jurisdiction of the Commission is confined to the cases falling under the scope of section 15 of the Ordinance and nothing beyond that. It implies that in cases of victimisation for any reason other than the trade union activities this Commiision will have no jurisdiction The existence of fair labour practice is prerequisite for, proceeding with a case under clause (g) of subsection (8) of section 22-A of the I.R.O. This jurisdictional prerequisite is missing in the present case."
8. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the Authority with justification that Muhammad Ramzan and Muhammad Mustkeem employees were stated junior to the petitioner but despite that the Authority was shown to have made allotments in their names and some other employees finding mention in the statement of the petitioner, were also stated to have obtained official accommodation out of the quota of employees sons but they had not been made parties to the petition. In my opinion the petitioner having omitted to implead the mentioned persons as necessary party, the petition suffers from the defect of non-maintainability. If an authority is needed on the point reference can be had to Pakistan Railways v. Muhammad Umar 1980 PLC 653.
9. In conclusion, I find that the petitioner has failed to establish a case of unfair labour practice against the Authority and the allotment of the quarter to another Lineman has been made validly for good reasons. The action of the Authority involves no element of unfair labour practice and jurisdiction of the Commission is ousted to interfere and give relief to the petitioner. The petition fails which is hereby dismissed. Stay vacated.
10. The petitioner has made a request that his case for allotment of the quarter has become ripe during the pendency of the petition and the Authority may be directed to issue allotment order in favour of the petitioner. If it is so, the Authority may consider the applications of the father of the petitioner and pass appropriate order in this respect.