' Petitioner Abdul Karim has filed the present petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 read with Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 stating therein that he is working in the establishment of respondent No,1 since 1986 as Security Guard and is permanent workman and the respondents are employer under the provisions of I.R.O., 1969 and Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968. He has remained staunch and active supporter of People's Unity of PIAC which is trade union of workers in the establishment of respondents and he has also remained Joint Secretary of Mehran Welfare Association of PIAC. It is alleged in the petition that the respondents are not happy with his trade union activities and his moral and physical support to the formation and promotion and also due to his work for the welfare and interest of the workers/employees of the PIAC from the platform of the Welfare Association. It is further alleged that he was called several times by respondent No,3 and was threatened to disassociate himself from the People's Unity of PIAC but he did not oblige the respondents which further annoyed the respondents and in order to victimise he was issued a bogus show-cause notice dated 11-5-1999 on fake charges. He submitted reply and denied all the allegations but the respondents without any reason suspended him and inquiry was ordered and he apprehends his dismissal from service which are acts of unfair labour practice. He, therefore, has prayed for following relief:--
(a) Take cognizance of the acts of unfair labour practice being committed and likely to be committed by the respondents and prohibit and restrain the respondents from committing any act of unfair labour practice in future.
(b) Declare that the show cause dated 11-5-1999 i,e, Annexure All and subsequent inquiry proceeding vide letter dated 14-5-1999 i,e, Annexure A/2 and any subsequent adverse order/out come of the inquiry is unlawful and of no legal effect being result of unfair labour practice and quash them.
(c) Prohibit and restrain the respondents from taking any adverse action against the applicant in respect of his employment including transfer, demotion, termination, discharge, dismissal or refusal of work or stoppage of salary till the decision of case and suspend the operation of order of dismissal/termination if passed by the respondents.
' Alongwith main petition, the petitioner filed Application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC (P&F)
Regulations, 1973 on which ad interim order was passed to the effect that "Meanwhile no order on the basis of inquiry proceedings if completed, be passed till the next date and in case any order has been passed but has not yet been served, the order is stayed till the next date". The matter has come up for confirmation of the stay or otherwise.
3. The respondents were duly served. They filed their comments as well as counter-affidavit to the stay application wherein they have taken the legal objections on the maintainability of the main petition as well as application for stay that applicant was eniployed as Security Guard in the P.I.A. In accordance with provisions of section 1(3)(c) of I.R.O., 1969, Industrial Relations Ordinance is not applicable to a member of Security Staff of respondent No,1 Airline, therefore, applicant has no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of Commission. They have further taken the plea that the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 8-10-1999 i,e, before the institution of the present petition and grant of ad interim order therefore unfair labour practice, if any has already been committed, therefore the Commission has no jurisdiction to grant status quo ante. They have further taken the plea that the applicant was in the Flight handling on 30-3-1999. During the loading of baggage on flight PK-336, the Vigilance Staff recovered 3 gold bangles from the possession of loader Safdar Hussain Shah. At the time of the said recovery of gold bangles the applicant was also present in the Aircraft hold alongwith Safdar Hussain Shah, loader and Nazir Ahmed. The said loader Safdar Hussain Shah confessed in his statement that the applicant also connived and abated in the said theft, therefore, the applicant was issued show-cause notice dated 11-5-1999 as disciplinary measures for the act of misconduct. The applicant replied the said show-cause notice. The said explanation was examined and was found to be unsatisfactory. In view of gravity of charges of misconduct of theft against the applicant pending disciplinary proceedings the applicant was suspended from service and Mr. Shamshad Ahmed Security Manager (Inst) was appointed as Enquiry Officer to the conduct the said inquiry. The Enquiry Officer on the basis of evidence submitted his report finding the applicant guilty of the said charges.
Thereafter, the competent authority examined the said proceedings and report and it was decided to give another opportunity to defend himself by calling upon him for his personal hearing before Director Administration. After the personal hearing the competent authority had decided to dismiss the applicant from service and by letter dated 8-10-1999 he was dismissed from.Service and the same order was sent to the applicant by post as he was absent from duty since 7-10-1999. They have denied the allegation that the applicant was dismissed from service due to his trade union activities or his dismissal is an act of unfair labour practice. They, therefore, have prayed that the main petition itself be dismissed.
4. I have heard Mr. Masood Noorani, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Masood Ahmed Khan, learned Advocate for the respondents and have perused the material available on record.
5. It is contended by Mr. Masood Noorani, learned counsel for the applicant that applicant was staunch supporter of People's Unity of PIAC which is trade union of workers in the respondent establishment and the applicant has also remained Joint Secretary of Mehran Welfare Association of PIAC and the respondents were not happy with the trade union activities of the applicant and due to his trade union activities a show-cause notice was issued to him which was duly replied and after the inquiry applicant was dismissed from service which is an act of unfair labour practice. He has further argued that the applicant is workman, therefore, the provision of I.R.O, 1969 are applicable to him. He has placed his reliance on 1999 SCMR 373 (Pak Arab Refinery Limited v.
Muhammad Rashid).
6. On the other hand Mr. Masood Ahmed Khan, learned counsel for the respondents has contended that the applicant being Security Guard in PIAC the provisions of the I.R.O., 1969 are not applicable to the case of the applicant. He has further argued that the applicant has been dismissed before the issuance of ad interim order and filing of the present petition which was filed on 11-10-1999, therefore, the Commission is not competent to grant status quo ante. He has further argued that the applicant has been dismissed from service after show-cause notice and a proper inquiry which is one of the fundamental right of the employer and is also one of the day to day routine matter in the establishment, therefore, no case of unfair labour practice has been made out. He has placed his reliance on 1997 PLC 10, 1995 PLC 35 and 1994 PLC 306.
7. It is an admitted position that the applicant was dismissed from service on 8-10-1999 and the present petition has been filed on 11-10-1999 i,e, after the passing of dismissal order of the applicant. The principal issue involved in the matter is as to whether this Court after the dismissal can grant status quo ante and set aside the order of dismissal at the time when the order of dismissal becames effective. In my humble view order of dismissal takes effect when it is passed by the authority competent to dismiss an employee or at the most when it is posted. Any other view is likely to lead to anomalous results. Employees may foil the orders of dismissal by simply avoiding service and thereby paralize the administration.
8. In case reported in 1980 CLC at page 550 (Asahi Industries v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal Karachi and 20 others) a Division Bench of Sindh High Court relying on the case "Tin Plate Company of India Limited Columri v. Abdul Sattar" (AIR 1960 Pat. 283) repelled the contention that an order of dismissal is not effective till the time it is served on the employee. In the case cited from Indian jurisdiction referred to above, it was held that for the purpose of section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, effective date is the date of passing the order of discharge and not the date of communication of the order. Similar view was taken in the cases of "Lord Krishna Textile Mills v.
Workmen (AIR 1961 SC 860) and "Banglore Woolen, Cotton and Silk Mills v. Dasappa" (AIR 1960 SC 1352). In Podar Mills v. Bhagwansing" (1973 SCC (L&S) 449; 2 LLJ 133) it was held that the dismissal order became effective when it was posted. Furthermore, in PLD 1979 Karachi page 493 the Division Bench of Karachi High Court has held that the discharge or termination will be effecitve from the date of the passing of the order and not from the date of communication of the order. The learned counsel for the applicant has failed to point out that dismissal order takes effect on the date of its service. Admittedly the applicant has already been dismissed from service on 8-10-1999.
9. Now the question for consideration is whether the Commission is competent to suspend the order of dismissal and restore status quo ante. Sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 32 of the NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 deals with the case of unfair labour practice already committed which provides that where any unfair labour practices has been already committed and the case falls under section 25-A and section 34 or 53 of the I.R.O., 1969 as the case may be, the Commission may deal with the case under that section and while awarding punishment under section 53 of the I.R.O., 1969 the Commission may direct reinstatement of a worker and allow consequential benefits to him.
10. Sub-Regulation (2) of Regulation 32 on the other hand makes provision for unfair labour practice likely to be committed. In such cases the Commission is empowered, inter alia to advise or prohibit all or any of the connected persons to do or refrain from doing any act or to conduct their affairs in a manner calculated to avoid occurrence of unfair labour practice. But the Commission has not been vested with such power in respect of unfair labour practice already committed, which is covered by sub-Regulation (1) of Regulation 32. Therefore, no relief by way of status quo ante can be granted to the applicant under Regulation 32(2) of N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations, 1973. Reliance can be placed in this respect on 1997 SCMR 1508. Apart from this, Regulation 32(2)(e) has consistently been interpreted by the Division Bench of the. Sindh High Court in case reported in 1984 PLC 1480, 1986 PLC 985, 1984 PLC 1342 and by, Lahore High Court in case reported in PLD 1976 Lahore 611 and 1980 PLC 752(c). All these decisions were examined and followed by the Full Bench of N.I.R.C. In the case reported in 1994 PLC 476. This clearly shows that superior judiciary has consistently taken the view that act already taken place cannot be suspended or kept in abeyance under Regulation 32(2)(c) which only limits the powers of the Commission to prevent future occurrence of unfair labour practice. Even otherwise the provisions of I.R.O. 1969 by virtue of section 1 (3)(c) are not applicable to member of Security Staff of respondent No,1 Airline. For ready reference subsection (3)(c) of section 1 is reproduced.
" ............................... (3) it shall not apply to any person employed.
(a) ........................................
(b) ........................................
(c) as a member of the Security Staff of the Pakistan International Airline Corporation ' The plane reading of section 1(3)(c) clearly shows that thee provisions of I.R.O., 1969 are not applicable on the Security Guards employed in P.I.A.C., therefore, the applicant has no locus standi to invoke the jurisdiction of Commission by filing the present petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969, therefore, the petition before this Bench of Commission is not maintainable. The authority cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and is distinguishable.
11. The applicant has been dismissed from service after a proper show-cause notice and inquiry on a very serious charge of misconduct. The jurisdiction of N.I.R.C. Under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 is very limited. The Commission cannot sit as an appellate Court over the action of the management. The applicant has failed to quote specific instance of his lawful trade union activities but has repeated his allegation of being victimised due to his trade union activities. Mere bald allegation of unfair labour practice are not sufficient to prove the victimization and make amenable for the interference by the Commission in the circumstances the relief prayed for is misconceived and cannot be granted, as such, the petition is not maintainable.
' In view of above discussion no case is made out for relief and the application under Regulation 32(2)(c). Of N.I.R.C. (P&F) Regulations, 1973 merits no consideration and is hereby dismissed. The ad interim order dated 11-10-1999 already granted stands vacated. The main petition is also misconceived and is not maintainable and the same also stands dismissed.
' Announced in open Court.
' Given under my hand and seal of the Commission, this 21st day of August, 2000.