' Khizar Hayat appellant-ex-cashier Habib Bank Limited _Shukheki Mandi Branch Hafizabad District has filed this appeal against the establishment of Habib Bank Limited and others challanging the order dated 15-1-1998 passed by Mr. Bahadar Ali learned Member N.I.R.C. Whereby he dismissed the grievance petition of the appellant/petitioner. It was held that no case of unfair labour practice was made out.
2. The facts narrated in the grievance petition are that the appellant was serving as cashier in the Habib Bank Limited where he was removed from service vide order dated 9-6-1994 Annexure 'B'.
3. The appellant has challenged the termination order by means of the grievance petition on the following grounds:
(a) That the appellant had been removed from service on account of trade union activities which falls within the ambit of unfair labour practice.
(b) That he was involved in false case and when he was in confinement, he received the impugned letter of termination without holding enquiry and thus was condemned unheard.
4. The respondent bank had filed comments of the grievance petition raising preliminary objection that the petitioner is not a workman, that he was terminated on 9-6-1994 and he filed the petition on 24-8-1995 hence the petition suffered for inordinate delay and laches. On merits, the respondents denied that he was terminated on account of any unfair labour practice. It was categorically stated that he was involved in a criminal case registered against him vide F.I.R. R/2 on account of which he was removed from service and ,that there was no need to give any show- cause notice. It was further mentioned that the Bank had filed a suit for recovery of outstanding liabilities to the tune of Rs,1,26, 339.40 which is decreed by the Banking Court, Gujranwala. The learned Member dismissed the petition of the appellant vide order dated 15-1-1998 having come to the finding that no element of unfair labour practice was found in the impugned petition hence this appeal.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has only raised the contention that the impugned order was too brief to be termed as a speaking order. He, however, argued half heartedly that he was terminated on account of unfair labour practice.
6. We have heard the arguments and perused the record very carefully. The perusal of the plaint shows that the appellant has not given any specific instance of unfair labour practice and has only made a bald statement that he was removed on account of his trade union activities. In the breath he mentioned that he was removed from service when he was in confinement in a criminal case and the termination order was passed without proper inquiry.
7. In order to establish a case of unfair labour practice, the appellant was supposed to satisfy the mind of the Commission that he had been victimised because the respondent was annoyed with him for trade union activity if any, the detail of which should be available. No such allegations are made in the plaint. Whether the proper/legal enquiry was held or not before termination, it is not for this Commission to examine this aspect. The jurisdiction of this Commission is strictly confined to the unfair labour practice which is lacking in the case. The impugned order shows that the appellant was in jail for more than one year and four months in a murder case on account of which he was terminated on 9-6-1994. He slept over the matter for more than one year and then brought the instant petition. We have also considered the contention that the impugned order is too brief.
The order no doubt is brief but is full of meanings. The case is hanging since 1995 and it would not serve any useful purpose if it is remanded for writing detail judgment, which would be an exercise in futility.
8. The result is that the appeal has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.