1. ' The petitioner was an employee of the respondent-establishment. He was appointed as Electrical Fitter in the year 1981. According to the petitioner he performed his duties honestly and diligently without any complaint from any quarter or corruption of any kind by the petitioner. He was an active member of a trade union known as Progressive Workers' Union. The petitioner's real brother was office-bearer of the said union. The petitioner was thorn in the eye of the rival union, namely, People's Workers Union. On the behest of the rival union, the respondents were after the petitioner to victimize him on any pretext. It happened so that the petitioner's circumstances compelled him to proceed on leave and as such he applied for leave for the period, from 9-11-1995 to 6-2-1996 which was duly granted by the competent authority. Again due to domestic circumstances of the petitioner he had to apply for extension of his leave. The respondents did not inform the petitioner about the fate of his application for extension of leave and after months he was informed regarding extension of leave. The respondents stealthily and in absence of the petitioner started proceedings against him in holding inquiry etc. And ultimately arbitrarily dismissed the petitioner on the charge of misconduct i,e, absence. The petitioner was informed about his dismissal from service on which he filed an appeal. He was not informed about the fate of his appeal. He preferred an appeal before the Prime Minister of Pakistan on which an order for sympathetic consideration of the request of the petitioner was passed. The respondents did not pay any heed to the appeal filed before them or an appeal filed before the Prime Minister of Pakistan. They did not even inform the petitioner regarding his appeals. The petitioner alleges that his dismissal order is on account of his lawful trade union activities as such an outcome of unfair labour practice. He prays for setting aside his dismissal order, dated 19-9-1996.
2. ' The respondents have contested the petition by filing written statement through counsel. The main contention of the respondents is about the jurisdiction of the Commission on account of insertion of section 2-A in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. The respondents have admitted that the petitioner filed an appeal, but the fate of the appeal was not communicated to the petitioner, as according to them it was not necessary. The respondents have also admitted that the petitioner was granted one year's-leave by them but afterward he absented himself.
3. ' The parties were afforded opportunity to file affidavits in support of their respective contentions which they did. The witnesses/deponents were duly cross-examined by the each party. The petitioner who is deponent/witness of his own contentions thas been subjected to the cross- examination, nothing has been derived by the respondents from the petitioner which could favour the case of the respondents. On the other hand, the deponent/witness namely Lt.-Col. (Retd.) S.M.
4. Aslam happens to be General Manager, Law, for the respondents. He was neither a competent person who could hire and fire the petitioner nor he was an inquiry officer of the petitioner. His statement was just as hearsay evidence.
5. ' I have gone through the pleadings of the parties, material placed on record and appreciated the evidence led by the parties. I have also heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and given my considered thought to the contentions of the parties in the light of the above narration.
6. According to the petitioner, he was an active member of a trade union and his real brother was an office-bearer which has not been denied/rebutted by the respondents. The petitioner was dismissed from service on account of unauthorised absence w,e,f, 9-11-1995 to 6-2-1996. By perusal of the record it appears that the petitioner was granted leave w,e,f, 9-11-1995 to 6-11-1996. The allegation is false and frivolous. It appears that the respondents were only after the petitioner to victimize him on account of his lawful trade union activities which is an unfair labour practice on the part of the management.
7. ' In the light of the above, the impugned order of dismissal, dated 19-6-1996 is hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner immediately with back benefits. There shall be no order as to costs. #TBS . #TBE