1. ' The brief and relevant facts for disposal of this petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in Divisional Public School, Sahiwal. He was granted pay scale of Assistant by the respondents vide Annexure A' in the petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that on joining Punjab Teachers Union he was victimized by way of dismissal from service on 28-2-1995. Aggrieved by the order dated 28-2-1995 the petitioner has brought this the instant petition alleging that the action of the respondents is an unfair labour practice on their part and ultimately prayed for its abashment.
2. ' The respondents have vehemently denied the averments made in the petition by filing written statement wherein they have raised certain preliminary objections. I have perused the pleadings of the parties and also record available on the files. I have also heard the learned counsel for the parties at quite some length.
3. ' The main objection raised by the respondents is about the jurisdiction of this Commission. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has relied upon 1991 PLC page 557 that Educational Institution is not an establishment as envisaged by Ordinance 1972, Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 section 2(xiv) Establishment definition. The learned counsel for the respondents further contends that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 28-2-1995 for serious misconduct of tampering dates of birth of students. He has come to the Court with unclean hands, so he is not entitled for any relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner has only attempted to invoke the jurisdiction of this Commission by writing down in his petition the word "unfair labour practice" neither he has appended with his petition any document which may even prove that the petitioner is an active member of some union. The petitioner has neither averred or narrated any event or circumstance which may lead to constitute an act of unfair labour practice. The petition fails on both the points.
(i) The petitioner has awfully failed to establish a case of unfair labour practice.
(ii) The respondent is not an establishment as envisaged in the I.R.O., 1969.
4. ' In view of the above, the petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.