' ABDUR RASHID KHAN (MEMBER).---This appeal is directed against the order dated 8-10-1998 passed by Mr. Bahadar Ali Learned Member N.I.R.C. Whereby he has accepted the petition of the respondent.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent was appointed as Work Mistri on 13-9-1983 and he was promoted as Foreman on 6-7-1994 by the appellants. The respondent was reverted by the appellants on 8-11-1994 on account of trade union activities with mala fide intention and without giving any notice to the respondent. The respondent further contends that there are two groups of trade union known as Labour Union Pak PWD (C.B.A.) had he was the President of one of the group known as Mustafa Group. The appellant being annoyed by his lawful trade union activities, the reversion was taken place due to the above said reasons:
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the appellants contested the petition. The appellant contends that the respondents was promoted by incompetent Authority and as such later on cancelled by the competent authority. It was vehemently denied that the respondent was reverted on account of Trade union activities and it was also denied that he was president of the union.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently stresses that the appellant cannot withdrawn the order as the same order has conferred a vested right and the respondent is entitled for the promotion under the law. Reliance is placed on PLD 1969 SC 407 wherein it has been held that when an order has taken its effect and created certain rights in favour of any individual such order cannot be withdrawn or rescinded to the detriment of those persons.
5. We have carefully examined the record of the case and are of the considered view that the jurisdiction of the Commissioner is limited only to the extent of unfair labour practice. The Commissioner does not have general jurisdiction. The respondent has not been able to convince us that the reversion order was made on account of trade union activities. Even in the plaint itself except the general allegations, no instance has been mentioned by the respondent. The respondent may have a good case in some other forum but not before the N.I.R.C.
6. In view of the above, the appeal has a force and is accepted thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 8-10-1998 by dismissing the petition of the respondent. There shall be no order as to costs.