' This is a petition filed under provision of section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 with the main contention that the petitioner services were terminated on account of his lawful trade union activities in the year 1984 and the following prayer was so right in the petition:- "In the above circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Commission may be pleased to pass the following orders in favour of the petitioner as against the respondents:-
(i) the petitioner has been illegally terminated by the respondent No, 1 by way of retrenchment on account of hisnnion affairs;
(ii) the above act of victimization and discriminating committed on the part of the respondents as defined under section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969;
(iii) the respondent No, 2 being the successor of respondent No, 1 is liable to reinstate the petitioner into service having been removed' illegally;
(iv) the respondent No, 3 which is a Government-owned Organization is , responsible to absorb the petitioner in the establishment run, controlled and managed by it.
2. The petition was admitted and notices were sent to the respondents, who have vehemently contested the petition on legal as well as factual grounds.
3. I have heard the learned counsel Mr. M.L. Shahani, Advocate for respondent No, 2 and Mr. S.M.
Yaqoob, Advocate for respondents Nos.1 and 3 while Mr. Sardar Liaquat Ali, Advocate appearing in the petition sought time to submit his arguments before the date of hearing/order and he was allowed to do so.
4. The record of the case transpires that the services of the petitioner were terminated on or about 9-12-1984 by the respondent No, 1 i,e, M/s. Republic Motors Limited, declaring the petitioner as surplus". However, it is an admitted feature of the case that the petitioner served the establishment of the respondent No,1 as Driver since 15-7-1970-, i,e, having a carrier of service at his credit of about 14 years. The petitioner, against his termination order, invoked the jurisdiction of the 5th Sindh Labour Court, Karachi by way of filing of an application under section 25-A of the I.R.O., 1969.
However, by way of order dated 17-8-1989 his petition was dismissed. The petitioner then preferred an appeal before the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal at Karachi (Appeal No,KAR-366/89) which also dismissed on 21-2-1990.
' It is also necessary to observe here that the petitioner also approached the Deputy Martial Law Administrator, for the redress of his grievance, as that time "Martial Law" was prevailing in the country and by way of order dated 19-2-1985, the Deputy Martial Law Administrator, ordered the reinstatement of the services of the petitioner. The documents i,e, order of the Martial Law Administrator (Annex. B/1) is also not disputed by the parties. However, this order of Martial Law Administrator could not be implemented uptil today as there was no machinery stipulated by law for the implementation of the Martial Law Orders, therefore, I don't think that the said order is of any help to the petitioner. It is also necessary to observe that admittedly, the petitioner approached the Review Board comprising of the learned Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad by way of filing of same petition in the year 1989 but the same has not been finally disposed of uptil today.
' Here I also feel sorry to observe that the petitioner, in all such proceedings, has not. Alleged the termination of his services on account of his lawful trade union activities but for the first time i,e, on or about 17-1-1996 by way of filing of the present petition, the petitioner alleged the commission of unfair labour practice by the respondents,. His services were terminated in the year 1984 and he has approached this Commission in the year, 1996 i,e, after the expiry of about 12 years and that too without any cogent explanation. It is also necessary to observe that the present respondent No, 2 'i,e, M/s. Hino Pak Motor Limited, Karachi, who admittedly came into existence as Limited Company in the year 1986 has also been recently joined in the proceedings, as I have already observed that the services of the petitioner were terminated in the year 1984 when the respondent No, 2 was not at all, came into existence and therefore, he was not joined in any other proceedings filed by the petitioner before various forums, and was joined in the proceedings as respondent for the first time in the year 1996.
5. As a result of the above discussion I have safely reached to the conclusion that the services of the petitioner have not been terminated on account of his lawful trade union activities as not only, he has failed to establish any act of unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969 against the respondents but also the plea of victimisation through unfair labour practice, is contrary to the proceedings filed by the petitioner himself before various other forums and secondly the petitioner has approached this Commission after passing of a period of 12 years, therefore, not only the petition is not maintainable and time-barred but also is suffering from laches. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.