' This is a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 wherein the petitioner who is an employee of the Establishment of Associated Press of Pakistan posted at Islamabad, is also an active member of the APP Employees' Union which is not only a registered industrywise trade unions but also is the CBA of the Establishment of Associated Press of Pakistan. It was contended that the petitioner was actively participating in trade union activities and therefore, the management was always bent upon victimisation of the petitioner by way of unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969. It was contended that the petitioner was re- instated into service by way of order dated 19-3-1995 and thereafter he was peacefully performing his duties but on 7-6-1995 the services of the petitioner were suddenly terminated without any lawful reason whatsoever. Considering such averments this Commission granted interim injunction by way of order dated 11-6-1995 in favour of the petitioner.
2. The respondents strongly contested the petition by way of filing of written statement and rejoinder to the stay application wherein certain preliminary legal objections as to the maintainability of the petition was also raised.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Abdul Hafeez Amjad, Advocate and the learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Muhammad Bashir Kiayani and have also considered the documents filed on record with their help.
4. It is an admitted feature of the case that the services of the petitioner were terminated in consequences of the allegations of misconduct on or about 10-3-1993, against which the petitioner filed a grievance petition before the Labour Court which was ultimately dismissed by the Punjab Labour Court No,6 vide order dated 17-1-1994. Against this order the petitioner filed an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal which was pending for adjudication and during the pendency of this petition the petitioner also filed a review petition dated 9-10-1994 before the Director- General of the respondent-establishment which was accepted vide order dated 19-3-1995 and it would be convenient to reproduce the contents of the same hereunder:-- "Accepting the review petition dated 9-10-1994, filed by Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Bhatti, Ex-Senior Sub- -Editor/Reporter APP, Rawalpindi, I, Aslam Sheikh, Director-General, APP, have decided to re-instate him in APP with immediate effect. His period of absence from APP from the date of dismissal to re- joining APP will be treated as extraordinary leave without pay and will not be maintainable for the payment of any kind of arrears. The petitioner Mr. Muhammad Ilyas Bhatti, will be required to withdraw all cases against APP (if any), he had filed in any Court(s) of law, as mutually agreed.
' He should submit his acceptance immediately and report for duty to the Acting Bureau Chief, APP, Islamabad for further deployment as soon as possible, but not later than 18-4-1995.
' With the issuance of this Office Order, the APP's order of even number dated 10-3-1993 stands superseded.
(Sd.)
(ASLAM SHEIKH), DIRECTOR-GENERAL."
5. After re-instatement in service the petitioner complied with the condition of withdrawal of the cases and accordingly on 22-3-1995 he was allowed by the Punjab Appellate Tribunal, Lahore vide order dated 22-3-1995 to withdraw the petition/appeal which was pending against the order of the Punjab Labour Court No, 6, dated 17-1-1994. Thereafter, when the petitioner as peacefully performing his duties, his services were terminated vide order dated 7-6-1995. It would be convenient to reproduce the contents of the same as under:-- "The Office Order of even number dated March 19, 1995 is hereby withdrawn.
' This has the approval of the competent Authority.
(Sd.)
(Bashir Ahmed Chohan), Manager (Admn. And Personnel)."
6. This order, on the face of it neither can be termed as legal one nor otherwise it contains any reason for the dismissal of the service of the petitioner. The petitioner rather stands cheated by the respondent, as he was asked to withdraw the appeal pending before the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal on the pretext that his services will be re-instated and when he had withdrawn his petition from the Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 22-3-1995, the services of the petitioner were illegally terminated.
Although the petitioner is successful in establishing a very strong case in his favour but I feel sorry to observe, that while exercising limited powers under the provision of section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969, this Commission has to see that whether any act of unfair labour practice has been committed with the petitioner and in this connection, the trade union activities of the petitioner would have played a positive role but on the contrary there is nothing on record to show as to whether such acts/orders have been passed by the respondents on account of his lawful trade union activities or otherwise. The petitioner has failed to show any role as a trade union activities, giving rise to the passing of the order dated 7-6-1995 against the order of dismissal/termination dated 7-6-1995, the petitioner may have remedies before the other forum but so far as this forum is concerned it has got limited jurisdiction i.e, to deal with the cases of unfair labour practice as narrated above.
7. As result of the above discussion I have got no other option but to declare the petition as not maintainable before this Commission and therefore, I do not feel the need to go into further discussion about the merits of the case r the status of the petitioner as a workmen etc. Because the same may otherwise affect the remedy of the petitioner, if any, before other competent forum. The petition is dismissed without any orders as to costs.