' This is a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 filed by the eight petitioners, who submitted that they are the employees of Associated Press of Pakistan Establishment and being the employees they are also members and office-bearers of the Associated Press of Pakistan Employees' Union, which is registered as Industry-wise Trade Union in the establishment of Associated Press of Pakistan. It was further submitted that the petitioner union is also enjoying the status of Collective Bargaining Agent in the establishment. It was further contended that as a result of the elections of the union, which were held on 23-4-1995, the petitioners were elected against the following offices:-
(1) Muhammad Bilal, Vice-President.
(2) Muhammad Murad, General Secretary.
(3) Muhammad Waheed, Joint Secretary.
(4) Muhammad Boota, Treasurer.
(5) M. Akram Malik, Executive Member.
(6) M. Zafran, Executive Member.
(7) M. Qamash, Executive Member.
(8) Muhammad Azam, Executive Member.
' It was the case of the petitioners that being annoyed with the lawful trade union activities of the petitioners the respondents have illegally terminated the services of the petitioners by way of orders impugned herein, and therefore, this act of the respondents constitutes unfair labour practice. Under such circumstances the petition was registered and the interim injunction order was issued in favour of the petitioners on 16-8-1995.
2. The respondents have seriously contested the petition as well as application under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (P & F) Regulations, 1973 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 were also raised and it was mainly contended that after passing of the termination/retirement orders, this Commission has got no jurisdiction as the Labour Court have got jurisdiction under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 on the subject.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. M.K. Khan, and Mr. M. Bashir Kayani, Advocate for the respondents and have also examined the documents filed by them on record.
The record of the case reveals that the services of the petitioners were terminated on 15-8-1995 by way of passing of separate orders and these orders were also served upon the present petitioner on the same date i,e, 15-8-1995. The service of the orders, whereby the services of the petitioners were terrminated/retired, have also been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners but it was contended that the same have got no legal affect as the same are passed in violation of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. At this stage I deem it proper to reproduce the provision of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 as under:-- ' Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, section 12(3): "The services of a workman shall not be terminated nor shall a workman be removed, retrenched, discharged or dismissed from service, except by an order in writing which shall explicitly state the reason for the action taken. In case a workman is aggrieved by the termination of his services or removal, retrenchment, discharge or dismissal, he may take action in accordance with the provisions of section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 (XXIII of 1969) and thereupon the provisions of the said section shall apply to the redress of an individual grievance."
' After perusal of subsection (3) of Standing Order 12, it is clear that one of the basic requirement of a termination order is that it should contain the reasons for such termination, dismissal, or discharge, from services etc. Which is lacking in the orders impugned herein and which can render the termination order illegal, as also held in the case-law reported in 1994 PLC 509, but at the same time it is mentioned that in case the employee, is aggrieved by the said order, the remedy is also provided under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. Therefore, this Commission while exercising its powers under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969, will not itself assume the powers of Labour Court until and unless the same constitutes unfair labour practice as defined under the provision of sections 15 and 16 of the I.R.O., 1969. If the present petitioners are aggrieved by the termination orders on the ground that these are violative of the Standing Order 12 of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, they may approach the Labour Court under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969. However, in my view the non-compliance of the provisions of Standing Order 12(4) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 will not render the entire termination order as illegal. It is necessary to reproduce the provision of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 Standing Oorder (4).
"Standing Order 12(4): ' Where the services of any workman are terminated the wages earned by him and other dues, including payment for un availed leave as defined in clause (1) of Standing Order 8, shall be paid before the expiry of the second working day from the day on which his services are terminated."
4. After going through this provision it is clear that directions are given to the employer in cases of terminating the services of its employees to make payment of the wages earned by him and other dues including payment of unavailed leave, before the expiry of second working day from the date on which his services are terminated but nothing is available in the provision to construe that the non-compliance of this direction will render the termination order as illegal or invalid. Besides in the case in hand the services of the petitioners were terminated/retired on 15-8-1995 while the termination orders were suspended on 16-8-1995 by this Commission, therefore, I feel myself acquainted with the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that by making the required payment under Sub-Standing Order (4) of Standing Order 12, a contempt of the orders of this Commission would have been occurred thereby not honouring the orders of this Commission dated 16-8-1995, whereby the termination orders were suspended and the respondent was supposed not to take any further action upon the same.
' At this stage I feel it necessary to observe that in my view as soon as the termination order/retirement orders is served upon an employee, he ceases to be an employee of the establishment any more. The non-compliance I of the requirement of Sub-Standing Order (3) of the Standing Order 12 of the A Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders)
Ordinance, 1968 i,e, not mentioning any reason for such termination, may be valid ground for rendering the impugned order as illegal but only by a Labour Court while exercising the powers under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969 and not by this Commission which is mainly concerned with the acts of unfair labour practice enumerated and specified in the provision of sections 15 and 16 of the I.R.O., 1969. Such termination may be violative of the provision of Standing Orders 12, Sub- Standing Order (3) or Sub-Standing Order (4) but do not itself constitute an act of unfair labour practice as defined under the above quoted two sections, and therefore, the necessary element for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Commission is lacking as it is also a well-settled principle of law that the jurisdiction of this Commission is limited to the cases of victimization defined under sections 15 and 16 only and no other type of victimisation, even if established on record, is actionable. Reference is made to the case-laws reported in 1994 PLC page 306, 1994 PLC page 470 and PLD 1991 SC page 973. Furthermore, the termination orders were already given effect by simply serving the same upon the petitioners and the same are supposed to be implemented the moment the service was affected. The law does not provide any other specific mode of implementation of the termination orders. This view gets support from the case-law i,e, National Industrial Cooperative Finance Corporation etc. v. Raja Ghazanfar All reported in 1993 PLC page 914.
' As a result of the above discussion, the petition is held to be not maintainable and is dismissed/rejected without any orders as to costs. The stay is recalled.