' This is petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 filed by Latif Dino Sarohi, who is working as Meter Reader in Sui Southern Gas Company Limited.
2. According to the petitioner he was appointed as temporary, but having worked for more than 90 days, has acquired the status of permanent workman, On 2-10-1997 he made an application for membership of Sui Southern Gas Company Workers' Union. The respondent No,2 called him and asked him to withdraw the said application for becoming member of abovesaid union, otherwise his name will be included in the list of retrenchment of the staff. Apprehending his removal from service due to his trade union activities the petitioner has filed the present petition to direct the respondents, their officers of persons connected with them not to terminate, remove, discharge, dismiss or retrench the petitioner from service.
3. Along with main petition, application under Regulation 32(2) (a)(b)(c)(d) of N.I.R.C. (P & F)
Regulations, 1973 supported by affidavit of petitioner has been filed for interim prohibitory orders.
4. Pre-admission notice was served on the respondents. The Advocate for respondents has filed application under Article 212(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with section 6 of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 that by virtue of section 2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973 the National Industrial Relations Commission has no jurisdiction.
5. I have heard the arguments of Mr. Gohar Iqbal, learned Advocate for petitioner and Raja Sikander Khan Yasir, learned Advocate for respondents.
6. Mr. Gohar lqbal, learned Advocate for petitioner has contended that the petitioner is covered by the definition of workman under Factories Act, 1934 and Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, as such he does not fall within the definition of civil servant and the N.I,R,C, has jurisdiction to deal with the case of unfair labour practice.
7. Raja Sikander Khan Yasir, learned Advocate for respondents has contended that the Federal Government has got controlling share of Sul Southern Gas Company Limited and has shown the Annual Report of 1996 of Sul Southern Gas Company Limited wherein at page 65 the Federal Government is shown to have 70,4% shares in Sui Southern Gas Company Limited. He has contended that Sul Southern Gas Company Limited is owned and controlled by the Federal Government, as such it is covered under section 2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The petitioner, working under Sul Southern Gas Company Limited, is deemed to be civil servant by virtue of section 2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973, relating to his terms and conditions of service and disciplinary matters, The termination, discharge, removal or retrenchment relate to his terms and conditions of service and disciplinary matters, as such N.1.11,C, has no jurisdiction.
8. Admittedly, the Sui Southern Gas Company Limited is owned and controlled by the Federal Government and it has controlling share in it, as such, it is covered under section 2-A of Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The petitioner, working under Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, is deemed to be civil servant in respect of his terms and conditions of service and disciplinary matter. Threat of termination, discharge, removal, retrenchment or any disciplinary action relates to terms and conditions of service and disciplinary matters, as it has been held by the Honorable Lahore High Court in the case of The Director Accounts, WAPDA, Lahore and 4 others v. Member-I, National Industrial Relations Commission, Lahore and another reported in 1997 PLC (C.S.) 189 and upheld by the Division Bench of Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 1842-L of 1996 which was followed by Full Bench of N.I.R.C. in Appeal No, 12(58) of 1997-L, of Chief Engineer (Water) WAPDA, Faisalabad Region, Faisalabad v. Ghulam Rasool, Senior Storekeeper, WAPDA, Scarp Construction Circle, Lahore.
9. Besides, there is no document to show that the petitioner has been made member by the union, as such, there is also no element of unfair labor practice.
' For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered view that N.I.R.C. has no jurisdiction and the jurisdiction vests with Federal Service Tribunal. The application, therefore, is dismissed in limine.