' Amjad Mahmood petitioner while posted as Messenger in UBL Mangla Road, Dina Branch, (District Jhelum) was served with a charge-sheet dated 25-2-1998 containing the following allegations:- "(1) That you provided branch's stamps/material to Mr. Tanveer Ahmad, holder of PLS Account No,16442 at Mangla Road Dina Branch and with your connivance a false/fabricated statement under fake signature as Manager has been prepared in respect of the aforesaid account and submitted to Immigration Section, British High Commission Islamabad for United Kingdom Visa.
(2) That on verification of the said statement of account by the British High Commission vide Letter No, IMM-V98-01357, dated 6-2-1998 the Manager of Mangla Road Dina Branch sent reply vide Letter No,RSN:GEN:98 dated 11-2-1998 and mailed the same through Courier Service i,e, T.C.S. Vide Consignment No,54328265. Dated 11-2-1998. To conceal your fraudulent involvement in the preparation of statement, you approached T.C.S. Centre, Jhelum and unauthorisedly received back the envelope containing the above noted branch reply, against your acknowledgment. The next day when the representative of T.C.S. At Dina informed the Manager about situation, then you handed over the envelop to the Manager."
2. Petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet denying the allegations levelled against him.
Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was instituted in which the petitioner was found guilty and a second show-cause notice was issued to him on 25-4-1998, to afford him another opportunity to defend his case and he was asked to appear before the Vice-President/Zonal Chief on 30-4-1998 if he wanted to be heard personally. It appears that instead of replying to the show-cause notice, the petitioner filed the instant petition under section 22A(8)(g) of I.R.O. Before this Commission on 5-5- 1998 alleging that he was an active Member of UBL Staff Union "due to which the management is hostile towards him." It was further alleged in the petition that "the respondents arc bent upon to dispense with the services of the petitioner due to his affiliation with a particular trade union although no misconduct has been proved during the course of enquiry proceedings..." The action impugned in the petition, it was alleged, amounted to unfair labour practice as defined under section 15 of the I.R.O., 1969, The petitioner also raised objection to the enquiry proceedings contending that the evidence of prosecution witnesses was not recorded in his presence nor was he given any chance to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. A prayer was made in the petition that "respondents and all connected persons may kindly be restrained from committing unfair labour practices and more particularly respondents may be permanently restrained from dispensing with the service of the petitioner on the basis of charge-sheet dated 25-2-1998".
3. The respondent resisted this petition by filing written statement wherein several preliminary legal objections were taken to question themaintainability of the petition. It was inter alia, contended by the respondents that the case of the petitioner did not fall within the ambit of unfair labour practice. It was pointed out by the respondents that the only allegation made by the petitioner is that he was an active member of UBL Staff Union and was carrying on trade union activities but he gave no specific instances of such activities. It was further pointed out by the respondents that the petitioner was not an officer-bearer of the trade union nor did he claim that the UBL Staff Union was CBA. On merits, the averments made by the petitioner regarding unfair labour practice were controverted by the respondents. It was denied that the management was hostile towards the petitioner or they victimised him for his trade union activities. It was contended by the respondents that the petitioner was not carrying on any trade union activities, and he made false allegations with a view to bring his case within the purview of section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O. So as to obtain prohibitory order from this Commission against his dismissal from service. Repelling the petitioner's objections against the departmental enquiry, it was stated by the respondents that all the legal formalities were observed in holding the enquiry and the petitioner had participated therein.
4. Both the parties adduced evidence through affidavits. Petitioner submitted his own affidavit which he tendered in evidence as Exh.P.I alongwith the documents Mark 1 to 15 which include the charge-sheet dated 25-2-1998, reply thereto, Inquiry report dated 18-4-1998 as also the enquiry proceedings and the show-cause notice. The respondents submitted the affidavits of Raja Shaukat Nawaz, AVP/Manager, Dina Branch UBL and Abdul Shakoor Dar, Inquiry Officer. The deponents on either side were duly cross-examined. Petitioner in his cross-examination accepted the suggestion that he had stated in his reply to the charge-sheet that the Manager had involved him to save his own skin though he proceeded to state further that he was involved in the case for his trade union activities. He also admitted that he was an Officer of the Trade Union from 1991-1992 and added that there were 11 office-bearers including him. He, however, admitted that no revengeful action was taken against 10 persons. He further admitted that he had remained an office-bearer from 1992 to 1994 but he was not an office-bearer now. Abdul Shakoor, the Enquiry Officer admitted in his cross-examination that the first allegation was not proved but the allegation that the petitioner had brought the envelope from T.C.S. Was proved. He denied the petitioner's suggestion that the envelope was brought at the instance of the Manager. He also denied that he was victimizing the petitioner at the instance of the Management.
5. I have heard the representative of the petitioner as also the counsel for the respondents. The representative of the petitioner has mainly challenged the enquiry proceedings and has contended that the petitioner was not allowed opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and the Inquiry Officer being subordinate to the Zonal Chief did not hold the enquiry fairly and impartially. He further contended that the petitioner was an active trade unionist and it was for that reason that the Management became hostile to him and initiated disciplinary proceedings against him on a false and bogus charge, and issued him show cause notice even though no misconduct was proved against him. TN representative of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned proceedings were started against the petitioner with a view to victimize him for his lawful trade union activities amounted to unfair labour practice. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has argued that the petition brought under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 is not maintainable as it is not a case of unfair labour practice. He has pointed out that the petitioner made only bald allegation in his petition that he was an active member of UBL Staff Union but he did not cite even a single instance of his trade union activities due to which the Management became hostile to him. No case of unfair labour practice is, thus made out against the respondents. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel that the petitioner has improved his version in his affidavit by deposing that he was also office-bearer of the UBL Staff Union and of Labour Union. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner claimed in his affidavit that he had remained Vice-President of UBL Labour Union in 1991-92 and thereafter, he joined UBL Staff Union and was elected its Area Secretary for the years 1992-94. Learned counsel has argued that even though the petitioner had not made any such averment in his petition, yet it is significant that no action was taken against the petitioner nor was he victimized when he was allegedly elected as office-bearer of the two unions. It is further contended by the learned counsel that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on definite allegations which could not be assailed as an act of unfair labour practice.
6. The first question which requires consideration in view of the preliminary objection raised by the respondents is whether the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner with a view to punish him for his lawful trade union activities. The petitioner no doubt made such an allegation in his petition but he gave no particulars/specific instances of his trade union activities which could possibly have annoyed the respondents or rendered them hostile to him to such an extent that they fabricated false ease against him. He made only a routine -bald allegation that he was an active member of a particular union due to which the management was hostile to him and was bent upon to dispense with his services. It is significant that the petitioner had not even alleged in the petition that he was an office-bearer of any union or the union of which he allegedly was an active member was the A CBA. It was only in his affidavit-in-evidence that the petitioner stated that he had remained office-bearer of the UBL Staff Union and the Labour Union but that was way back in the years 1991-92 and 1992-94 when no action was taken against him and it cannot legitimately be contended that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him in the year 1998 to victimize him for his trade union activities of bygone years, particularly when there is nothing on the record to show what precise trade union activities/functions were performed as office-bearer by him in those years. That being so, I am not satisfied on the present record that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner with a view to victimise him for his trade union activities. I, therefore, uphold the objection of the respondents that this petition is not maintainable under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O. As it is not a case of unfair labour practice.
Needless to observe that the jurisdiction of this Commission is attracted only to those cases where the action complained of is motivated on account of trade union activities of an employee/workman.
7. In view of what has been said above, it is not necessary to go into the validity of the enquiry proceedings and the show-cause notice issued by the respondents. Suffice it to observe, however, that since the petitioner has not so far replied to the show-cause notice, he may do so now and raise all-the legal and factual pleas in his reply including the objections with regard to the enquiry proceedings/findings and I have no doubt in my mind that the competent Authority shall duly look into and examine all such contentions/pleas and decide the matter strictly according to law particularly keeping in view the fact that the Enquiry Officer absolved the petitioner of the first charge and the second charge of which ne has been found guilty was seemingly an off-shoot of the first charge.
8. In view of what has been said above, this petition is dismissed being not maintainable but with the observations aforementioned.