' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA (CHAIRMAN),---This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Bench, dated 10-4-1999 accepting the petition of Mrs. Tahira Rizvi respondent No,3 herein.
2. Facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal briefly are that Mst. Tahira Rizvi, an employee of CDA was allotted Quarter No,B-56/2, Sector G-9/2, Islamabad on 1-4-1981. Her allotment of the said quarter was, however, cancelled on 19-8-1996 on the ground of subletting and the said quarter was then allotted to the present appellant. Feeling aggrieved, Mrs. Tahira Rizvi filed a petition in this Commission under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O. Alleging therein that she was residing in that quarter with her family comprising her mother, sister and brother. She made a grievance that her allotment was cancelled on frivolous ground of subletting and without issuing any notice to her and that the action of the respondent-management "is only on account of her being an active member of CDA Employees' Union which union is at present enjoying the status of CBA". It was accordingly prayed by her that the respondents be directed not to commit any act of unfair labour practice and the impugned order, dated 19-8-1996 cancelling the allotment of the quarter in dispute be set aside being based upon unfair labour practice.
3. Respondent CDA and the present appellant (who, it is stated, was impleaded as a respondent in the petition filed by Mrs. Tahira Rizvi, by order of the learned Single Member) filed separate written statements. CDA in its written statement submitted that on the application of the appellant alleging that the respondent had sublet the quarter in dispute, the matter was investigated by the Security Directorate and it was found that the allottee, after her marriage, was dwelling with her husband at Dhoke Chiraghdin, Rawalpindi. It was further pointed out by the CDA that "she travels from office to Rawalpindi in CDA Staff Bus No,5 and the quarter was occupied by her mother, sisters and brothers". It was asserted by the CDA in para. 3 of the written statement that "show-cause notice was issued on 13-5-1996. Reply to the show-cause notice was received after due date, therefore, same was not processed. The case was placed before the Subletting Committee on 6-8- 1996 who recommended that the quarter may be cancelled from the name of petitioner and may be allotted to 1st Informer. Accordingly allotment letter was issued on 19-8-1996 and possession was given to the 1st Informer Mr. Ehsan-ur-Rehman on 20-8-1996."
4. The appellant in his written statement took a preliminary objection that this Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O. As it was not a case of unfair labour practice and in any case, the petitioner before the learned Single Member had no right guaranteed or secured to her under any law, award or settlement. He also contended that Mrs. Tahira Rizvi was not residing in the quarter in dispute which she had sublet and that she in fact was residing with her husband Syed Shafaat Hussain in House No,551, Gali No,6, Mohallah Qaziabad, Dhoke Chiraghdin, Rawalpindi Cantt. Since her marriage. He further contended that a show-cause notice was issued to respondent No,3 on 13-5-1996. She submitted a reply thereto on 21-5-1996 whereafter the enquiry was held and the allegation of the appellant having been found correct, the allotment of the quarter in the name o respondent No,3 was cancelled and the quarter in dispute was allotted to him being the first Informer as was provided in the Pakistai Allocation Rules. The appellant also pointed out in his written statement that respondent No,3 had submitted an application to the Member (Admn.) of the CDA whereupon the matter was again enquired into by the Enquir) Committee which came to the conclusion that the allegation of the appellant was correct.
5. Mrs. Tahira Rizvi and the appellant produced evidence in the form of affidavits. Mrs. Tahira Rizvi submitted her own affidavit as also affidavit: of her sisters, Ms. Bushra Rizvi, Ms. Nasira Rizvi and Ms. Shahida Rizvi while the appellant produced his own affidavit-in-evidence. All the deponent: were duly cross-examined.
6. Learned Single Bench by his order, dated 10-4-1999 impugned it the present appeal accepted the petition of Mrs. Tahira Rizvi holding witt reference to the statements of certain persons of the locality made during the departmental enquiry that Mrs. Tahira Rizvi was residing in the said quarter alongwith her family members i,e, her mother, sisters and brother. Witt regard to the appellant's contention that Mrs. Tahira Rizvi was living with her husband who was residing in Rawalpindi, the learned Member sought to explain it away by observing "the petitioner is a married lady, her husband is living at Rawalpindi in private accommodation certainly she has to go to Rawalpindi to meet her husband and children", and proceeded to hold or these premises that her right of Government accommodation could not b snatched from her particularly "because she has not sublet the quarter and he family members are living there with her i,e, her mother, sisters and disable( brother".
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the relevant record with their assistance. Our attention has beer drawn to the affidavits submitted by Mrs. Tahira Rizvi and her three sister: and their cross-examination. Mrs. Tahira Rizvi in her cross-examination has admitted that she was married in the year 1985 and that "I live in House No,591, Gall No,6, Mohallah Qaziabad, Rawalpindi with my husband since 1985". She also admitted that her name "is enrolled in the voters' list at the house. My children are studying in Rawalpindi'. She further admitted that she came from Rawalpindi to Islamabad on CDA Bus. Her sisters Shahida Nasira and Bushra also admitted in their cross-examination that they were living in the quarter in dispute with their brothers and mother and that Mrs Tahira Rizvi respondent being a married woman was living with he husband at Rawalpindi and her children were also studying there. All the three sisters also admitted that Mrs. Tahira Rizvi came to Islamabad from Rawalpindi on CDA Bus. They have further admitted that their 'brother Sarfraz is living in the quarter alongwith his family.
8. Ehsanur Rehman in his cross-examination reiterated his contention that Tahira Rizvi was residing at Rawalpindi and not in the quarter in dispute.
9. It is abundantly clear from the statements made by Mrs. Tahira Rizvi and her sisters in their cross-examination that Mrs. Tahira Rizvi was residing with her husband in Rawalpindi since her marriage in 1985 and her children were also studying in Rawalpindi and that she comes to Islamabad from Rawalpindi on CDA Bus. It is manifest from their admissions that Mrs. Tahira Rizvi was not residing in the quarter in dispute which was in possession of her mother, sisters, and brother. The learned Single Bench does not appear to have adverted to the afore-noted admission, made by Mrs. Tahira Rizvi and her sisters while taking the view that Mrs. Tahira being a married lady had to go to Rawalpindi to meet her husband and children who were living in Rawalpindi. The finding so recorded by the learned Member is clearly against the record and such cannot be sustained. On the admitted facts, Mrs. Tahira Rizvi herself had not resided in the quarter in dispute for almost 11 years and allowed it to be used by her mother, sisters and brothers who evidently had no lawful authority to occupy the quarter in dispute. They were clearly illegal occupants. Mrs. Tahira Rizvi had thus, forfeited her right to the Government accommodation and her allotment was, therefore, rightly cancelled.
10. It may pertinently be observed that the allotment of Mrs. Tahira Rizvi was cancelled for good reasons as held above and not as measure of any unfair labour practice. In fact, even the learned Member has not recorded any definite finding in that behalf. He has simply observed the impugned order that the respondent being an active member of Employees' Union indulged in legitimate and lawful trade union activities, but he cited no specific instances of such activities.
Needless to observe that a bald statement that a workman is an active member of a trade union without specifying any of his trade union activities which could possibly annoy the employer to take some adverse action against him cannot bring the case within the purview of A section 15 of I.R.O. Which deals with unfair labour practice on the part of employers. In this view of the matter, respondent's petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O. Was not maintainable. This aspect of the matter has not been duly attended to/considered by the learned Single Bench.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has produced on record Pakistan Allocation Rules, 1993, Rule 15 whereof permits the sharing of accommodation with a friend or relative of the allottee for a period of 6 months at the most and that, too, with the permission of the Estate Office.
The present case is not one of sharing of accommodation as is evident from the afore-noted admission of Mrs. Tahira Rizvi and her sisters and in any case, it is not the case of Mrs. Tahira Rizvi that she had obtained any permission from the relevant authorities. In fact, her counsel quite fairly conceded that no such permission was obtained. Possession of the quarter in dispute by the sisters, mother and brother of Mrs. Tahira Rizvi was clearly illegal.
12. Upshot of the above discussion is that no legitimate exception could be taken to the cancellation of allotment of respondent Tahira Rizvi. The impugned order of the learned Single Member allowing the petition of the respondent is unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside, with the result that appeal of Ehsanur Rehman appellant is allowed.