M. JAVED BUTTAR, J. -- This Constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is directed against an interim order dated 12.1.1999 passed by two members of NIRC whereby the NIRC has directed the petitioners to withdraw their orders dated 26.6.1998 and 6.8.1998.
2. The facts, in brief, are that respondent No. 2 Misbah Naheed is working as Telex Operator in the Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation and as she was not sent by the petitioners to TL-3 Training Course, she filed a petition u/S. 22-A (8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 before the NIRC alongwith an application of stay seeking permission to join the course during the pendency of the petition. The Single Member of NIRC vide his order dated 25.1.1996 admitted the petition to regular hearing and directed the petitioners to allow the respondent Misbah Naheed to join the course immediately as an interim relief and under the said orders the respondent joined the said course. Therefore, vide his order dated 5.8.1996, the Single Member of NIRC accepted the respondent's petition with costs. The order was appealed against by the petitioners before the Full Bench of NIRC. The Full Bench of NIRC vide its order dated 14.4.1998 accepted the appeal of the petitioners, set aside the order dated 5.8.1998 of Single Member of NIRC and while doing so, made the following observations as well:- "We have gone through the record in the light of the arguments advanced before us. It is not denied that the respondents have already completed the course during the pendency of the proceedings before the Single Bench and the Full Bench. As such, they have already achieved the object for which the petitions were tiled by them."
3. The order or the observations made by the Full Bench of NIRC were never challenged by either of the parties and the same attained finality.
4. Petitioner No. 2-Deputy General Manager, Lahore, vide his order dated 26.6.1998 issued a direction that as the appeal has been accepted by the Full Bench of NIRC, therefore, all the benefits gained by the respondent on the basis of TL-3 Training Course may he withdrawn and the respondent may not be promoted on the basis of ES-Ill (training). Consequently, petitioner No. 1- Divisional Engineer, Telex, PTCL, Lahore vide his order dated 6.8.1998 withdrew the two advance increments gained by the respondent on the basis of TL-3 Training Course and further declared that she will not be promoted on the basis of TL-3 and re-fixed the respondent's pay. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed a petition under Section 22-A (8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 before the NIRC which was entertained by the two members of NIRC and notice was issued on 25.9.1998 for 25.11.1998. On 25.11.198, it was adjourned to 22.12.1998. On 22.12.1998, reply was filed by the petitioners and the petition was fixed for 12.1.1999 for arguments. On 12.1.1999, two members of NIRC passed the impugned order which is interim in nature and through the said order, the petitioners were directed to withdraw both the above orders dated 26.6.1998 and 6.8.1998 and the matter was adjourned to 10.2.1998.
5. The petitioners have challenged the above said order dated 12.1.1999 through this Constitutional petition on the ground that after passing of the final order by the Full Bench of NIRC on 14.4.1998, the NIRC has become functus officio and it cannot re-open the matter. The precise argument is that the present petition filed by the respondent Misbah Naheed is in continuation of the previous proceedings which is illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that if it were fresh petition , it would have been entertained by the Single Member of NIRC and not by two members of NIRC and this aspect also shows that the present petition of respondent is not a fresh petition under Section 22-A (8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 but merely a miscellaneous application, through which the matter is being re-opened which has already attained finality. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent Misbah Naheed while opposing this petition has submitted that the respondent Misbah Naheed has filed a fresh petition under Section 22-A (8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 challenging the fresh orders dated 26.6.1998 and 6.8.1998 by the petitioners as the same constitute unfair labour practice and this is so mentioned in her petition as well. The petition was filed before the Chairman, NIRC and the matter was fixed before two members of NIRC and the two members of NIRC have entertained the same and whether the petition is heard by the Single Member of NIRC or by two members of NIRC is their internal matter which relates to the distribution of work by the NIRC and it does not mean that the petition is being treated not as a fresh petition but merely as a miscellaneous application in continuation of the previous proceedings which resulted in the disposal of the petitioner's appeal finally on 14.4.1998.
6. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondent has merely filed a miscellaneous application whereby the matter finally decided by the Full Bench of NIRC on 14.4.1998 has been reopened, has no force. The perusal of the respondent's petition shows that the respondent Misbah Naheed filed a fresh petition under Section 22-A (8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 on the basis of fresh cause of action i.e. The orders dated 26.6.1998 and 6.8.1998 passed by the petitioners and the respondent has challenged the same as the result of unfair labour practice as per para 8 of the petition and it has been treated as a fresh petition by the NIRC. Furthermore, the argument that since the petition has been entertained by two members of NIRC, therefore, it will be deemed to be in continuation of the previous proceedings, has also no force because whether the fresh petition under Section 22-A (8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 has been entertained by the Single member of NIRC or by the two members of NIRC, relates to the distribution of work by the NIRC. Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 does not create any bar of the entertainment of the petition under Section 22-A (8)(g) by the two members of NIRC. In fact, subsection (10) of Section 22 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 declares that for the purposes of dealing with a case of unfair labour practice, Commission may proceed directly with the case or ............... And under clause (v-aa) of Section 2 of I.R.O., 1969, "Commission" means the National Industrial Relations Commission constituted under Section 22-A of the I.R.O., 1969 and under sub-section (2) of Section 22-A the Commission is to consist of not less than seven members including the Chairman. This also shows that there -is no law providing the entertainment of fresh petitions under Section 22-A (8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 only by a Single member and the same cannot be entertained by two members. This is merely an administrative division of work and the impugned order does not suffer from an illegality merely because the respondent's petition has been entertained by two members of NIRC.
7. In view of the above-mentioned, I see no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.