' 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 Establishment of WAPDA and at present is posted as Data Coordinator in the WAPDA Computer Centre, Islamabad. The petitioner is also the Chairman of Pakistan WAPDA Labour Union Computer Centre, Islamabad. It was further contended that the petitioner belongs to non-CBA and the Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Central Labour Union is enjoying the status of CBA. The respondents are very much annoyed with lawful trade union activities of the petitioner, as the petitioner is an active trade unionist. It was further contended that as an act of victimization, the respondents are bent upon causing injury to the service of the petitioner upon baseless grounds.
2. The petition was strongly contested by the respondents by way of filing of written statement wherein certain preliminary legal objections were also raised as to the maintainability of the petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties upon the application under Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (P & F) Regulations, 1973 and have also considered the documents filed by the parties on record.
4. The status of the petitioner as an active member/unionist has not been denied by the respondents and in this behalf the Notification dated 14-6-1994 whereby the petitioner was nominated as Chairman for the Pakistan WAPDA Labour Union Computer Centre, Islamabad is also on record and not disputed by the. Respondents. The petitioner obtained medical leave on 8-10- 1994 upto 30-11-1994 and submitted his arrival report before the respondent No,2 on 1-12-1994.
However, subsequently vide notice/office letter dated 1-1-1995 he was directed to obtain a medical fitness certificate from WAPDA Hospital Rawalpindi, and reference was made to Rule 21 (b)(c) of the Pakistan WAPDA Electricity Leave Rules 1982. The petitioner also got himself examined by the Medical Board and obtained a certificate which is filed on record as Annexure 'C', wherein his official sick leave with effect from 8-10-1994 to 30-11-1994 (54 days) which was already availed by the petitioner, was approved on the basis of benefit of doubt etc. But this certificate was again not satisfactory to the respondents and dispute arose between the parties which ultimately resulted in the filing of the present petition. The controversy between the parties is a mixed question of law and facts which requires evidence from the parties and cannot be decided on the basis of oral arguments. However, as regards to the objection of the jurisdiction of this Commission, it is observed that the petitioner may be a Civil Servant within the meaning of WAPDA Act, 1958, and all of his terms and conditions of service V may be regulated by the provisions of the said Act, but at the same time he is admittedly a workman and an active trade unionist and was also the elected Chairman of the WAPDA Computer Centre, Islamabad of the WAPDA Labour Union, which is a registered industry wise trade union, and therefore, this Commission is not only seized of the jurisdiction under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969, but also is the only forum to safe guard the lawful trade union activities of such employees. Now, whether the respondents has committed any act of unfair labour practice, within the meaning of section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969, is again a question of law and facts, which can only be decided after receiving the evidence of the parties. The petitioner has also placed on record two other notices dated 28-3-1995 and 1-4-1995, and on the basis thereof the petitioner genuinely apprehends some kind of serious injury to his service which may constitute unfair labour practice, therefore, the petitioner has at least made out an arguable case in his favour which requires certain precautionary measures to be taken by this Commission, and as a result thereof the interim injunction order dated 9-2-1995 is confirmed with the addition that the respondents are restrained from, dismissal, discharge, removal from service, termination, transfer etc. Of the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to produce evidence in support of his case.
Case is adjourned to 4-7-1995 for petitioner's evidence.