' This is a petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 wherein the petitioner contends that he is an employee of the respondent's establishment since 1975. He is the elected General Secretary of Utility Stores Corporation Workers' Federation which is formed in the year 1991 and is also the C.BA. Of the establishment of Utility Stores Corporation throughout Pakistan. Being the General Secretary of the C.BA., the petitioner submitted a Charter of Demands to the respondents due to which the respondent became annoyed and started victimization of the petitioner. In order to restrain him from the performance of his lawful trade union activities, the petitioner was deprived of certain facilities which were enjoyed by him as the General Secretary of the C.BA. For example, Telephone, P.O.L., Office and relieve from charge of any work etc. Under such circumstances the petition was registered on 5-6-1995 and interim injunction order was issued in favour of the petitioner.
2. The petition was strongly contested by the respondents by way of filing of written statement and rejoinder to the stay application wherein certain preliminary objections, as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised and it was contended that the petitioner is neither entitled under any provision of law to claim such facilities nor otherwise the respondent are bound to continue the same, and can discontinue the same at any time, at their own sweetwill and discretion.
3. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the record of the case with their help.
4. The record of the case transpires that on or about 15-11-1993 the petitioner filed an application that he should not be handed over the charge of Store Manager, on the ground that being the General Secretary of the Utility Stores Corporation Workers' Federation, he could not perform his lawful trade union activities in order to maintain industrial peace and welfare of the workers etc. Before the respondents and the respondent allowed the same vide their Office Order bearing No, 1(1)Estt./RM, dated 17-11-1993. The record further shows that by way of letter, dated 11-3-1993 the respondents allowed the petition it, being the General Secretary of Pakistan Utility Stores Corporation Workers' Federation, the ceiling of 300 Telephone Calls. The petitioner was also allowed the consumption of P.O.L. Of 100 litres per month by way of order, dated 30-7-1992. However, on 13- 2-1995, by way of passing of two different orders, all such facilities were withdrawn with immediate effect and the said two orders transpire no reason at all, for the withdrawal of such facilities. The petitioner was also directed to take charge of the Utility Store at Scheme No,3, Chaklala, Rawalpindi.
It is contended that the petitioner was completely ousted from the performance of his lawful trade union activities, as the holder of the said two very important offices. The orders, dated 13-2-1995 are also silent about any reason as to how the petitioner became so uncalled victim of the establishment of the respondents, or what was the occasion for the withdrawal of the said facilities.
' At this stage I would like to observe, as also pointed out during the course of arguments, that the petitioner, being the General Secretary of the C.BA., submitted Charter of Demands and in furtherance of the same, also served a strike notice upon the respondents, in consequences whereof the respondents, filed a petition against the present petitioner and others, before this Commission i,e, 19(6)/95 wherein this Commission has suspended the strike notice and has also restrained the petitioner from taking any strike, by way of order, dated 12-6-1995.
5. As discussed above and as also evident from the record, the petitioner is not only holding the two very important offices of the union but is also actively performing his trade union activities in the establishment of Utility Stores Corporation and this fact could not be denied by the respondents that the respondents due to said performance of the petitioner, was annoyed with the petitioner. Except such type of annoyance, the respondents could not forward any other reason as to why all such facilities were withdrawn from the petitioner's union which were lawfully enjoyed by the petitioner with the permission of the respondents. Ordinarily, the management of the Establishment provides all such facilities to its C.B.A., in order to avoid any industrial dispute and for the welfare and the benefits of its workers. In the case in hand all such facilities were also enjoyed by the petitioner with the due permission and approval of the respondents, therefore, such type of withdrawal of said facilities is highly uncalled for. Besides, by allowing petitioners to enjoy such facilities, the respondents themselves have vested a lawful right in the petitioner's union to continue to enjoy all such facilities and the same cannot be withdrawn in the way or manner, the respondent have adopted by passing of the two impugned orders, dated 13-2-1995 and 13-2-1995.
I find myself fully acquainted with the findings of the learned Senior Member passed in case titled as Ayub Shah v. Tarbela Joint Ventures reported in 1976 PLC 938 that a concession lawfull enjoyed by a person becomes something more than a mere concession or facility and discontinuance of the same may result into serious consequences. In another case, such facilities were restored by the Labour Court and were upheld by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal reported in PLJ 1976 Tr.C.
(Labour) page 97. However, I feel it necessary to observe here that such concessions or facilities do not include unreasonable or unjustified facilities. By way of order dated 17-11-1994, the respondents have unreasonably and without any justification have exempted the petitioner from taking charge of the post meaning thereby that 'no charge no work'. Resultantly, the petitioner is neither holding the charge of any post nor is performing any work for the establishment and is getting full pay. It is much unreasonable that an employee is getting full pay from the employer, without performing any work for the employer or the establishment, in the garb of trade union activities. The petitioner cannot refuse to take charge of the post/work assigned to him by the employer, even for the performance of trade union activities. Firstly, an employee should bring himself within the definition of a worker or workman by performing some work for the establishment only then he can claim to be the active trade unionist. In my view the respondents have exceeded their lawful limits by granting exemption to petitioner to hold charge of any post, by passing the order, dated 17-11-1994, but subsequently rectified the same by passing the order, dated 27-5-1995.
6. As a result of the above discussion the petition is partly accepted, the two different orders, dated 13-2-1995 passed by the respondents are set aside with further directions to the respondents not to discontinue the facilities previously granted to the petitioner i,e, office for the Collective Bargaining Union (C.BA.) 300 Telephone Calls (the telephone should be installed at the office of the C.BA. And not residence of the petitioner), 100 Litres Petrol. However, the office order, dated 27-5-1995 will remain intact and the application under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions)
Regulations, 1973 is dismissed. The petition is disposed of without any orders as to costs.