' Muhammad Shafi, UDC W&S Directorate, CDA, Islamabad has filed this petition under section 22- A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, seeking a direction to the respondent/CDA for regularisation of his service w.e.f 4-3-1982 and "for the payment of all the back benefits including seniority in accordance with law." Facts relevant for the disposal of this petition as emerging from the pleading of the parties are that the petitioner was .Appointed as Naib Qasid in CDA on 1-7-1965.
He was later appointed as LDC w,e,f, 10-6-1969 and promoted as UDC on 30-8-1974. In the year 1982 the petitioner while posted as UDC/Cashier in the Land Directorate of the respondent CDA applied for three months leave but without getting the leave sanctioned absented himself from duty. He was, therefore, proceeded against under the Efficiency and Disciplinary Rules and was dismissed from service w,e,f, 4-3-1982 i,e, the date from which he absented himself from duty. It appears that the petitioner applied for his reinstatement on 11-8-1984. His application was considered by the competent authority which converted his dismissal into termination and he was given fresh appointment as UDC w.e.f 2-9-1984. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for regularisation of his previous service which request was refused on 15-6-1989. He made yet another representation on which the Deputy Director is stated to have called for the personal file and Service Book of the petitioner in January, 1993, but no further action was taken. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the instant petition in April, 1999 seeking the aforenoted relief.
2. The respondent CDA resisted that the petitioner by filing the written statement in which it raised a number of preliminary legal objections questioning the maintainability of the petition on the ground, inter alia, that no allegations of unfair labour practice have been made in the petition, which, therefore, does not fall within the ambit of section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 and "Since the petitioner has wilfully accepted the terms of reappointment, he is estopped from moving the petition." On merits it was submitted by the respondent that in the year 1982, while the petitioner was posted as UDC/Cashier, he applied for three months leave and absented himself without getting the leave sanctioned. He was accordingly dealt with under the E&D Rules and was finally dismissed from service w,e,f, 4-2-1982, the date from which he absented himself from duty. This was vide order, dated 20-11-1982. It was also contended in the written statement that the petitioner requested for reinstatement in service on 11-8-1984. His request was considered and the penalty of dismissal was changed into-termination from service and he was re-appointed as UDC w,e,f, 2-9- 1984. It was also pointed out in the written statement that besides normal terms and conditions, petitioner's re-appointment was also made subject to the further conditions in the letter of offer of appointment that "His reemployment in service will be without any back benefit and he will be treated as fresh appointee." Case of the respondent is that the petitioner accepted the offer of re- appointment, joined the duty on 2-9-1984 and after getting the service submitted many applications for back benefits which were rejected for the reason that he was not entitled to any back benefits as per offer of appointment. The respondent authority also claimed that this Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the case.
3. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their respective contentions. Petition submitted his affidavit-in-evidence and he was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the respondent on 8-11-1999. He admitted during cross-examination that in the year 1982, he had applied for three months' leave which was not granted and he, therefore, absented himself from duty. He further stated that he was reinstated as UDC "but as a fresh appointee in 1984". He also admitted that he had agreed to forego back benefits in case he was re-employed but he proceeded to add that he had done so as the Deputy Director had told him. He, however, admitted that he had never made a grievance in any of his applications nor even in his grievance petition that he was told by the Deputy Director to forego the back benefits. It may be stated that in his affidavit, the petitioner also referred to the cases of some other employees whose previous service was regularised. Service record of all such employees was requisitioned from the respondent CDA at the request of the petitioner. On behalf of the respondents, Muhammad Azam, Assistant Adm. Officer appeared as R.W.1 and his statement was recorded on 11-7-2000.
4. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was dismissed from service on the charge of unauthorised absence from duty. He did not, challenge the order of his dismissal in any judicial forum and applied to the departmental authorities for reinstatement on which his dismissal was converted into termination and he was re- employed as UDC w,e,f, 2-9-1984. It has come in evidence that the petitioner was offered fresh appointment as UDC vide letter dated 2-9-1984 Exh.R.1 which shows that part from usual terms and conditions, the appointment of the petitioner was also subjected to further conditions which are reproduced hereunder:--
(a) His re-employment in service as UDC will be without any back benefit and he will be treated as fresh appointee.
(b) He is required to give an undertaking in writing to forego all claims in respect of seniority etc. On account of his previous service.
(c) He will be liable to render a certificate of good conduct and behaviour in future.
(d) He would be placed on special report for a period of one year in the first instance.
' Petitioner.Joined the duty and submitted the joining report Exh.R.2 on 2-9-1984 presumably accepting the aforenoted conditions though he is not shown to have furnished- the requisite undertaking. It is, thus proved on record that after his dismissal/termination in the ,year 1982, the petitioner was appointed afresh as UDC in 1984 on the condition that his reemployment was without any back benefits and he would be treated as fresh appointee. As noted above, the petitioner had agreed to forego back benefits. In the circumstances, the petitioner was estopped from claiming any benefits of his previous service from which he had been dismissed/terminated.
5. This petition even otherwise is not maintainable under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., as it does not make out any case of unfair labour practice. It may pertinently be observed that the only allegation made by the petitioner in his petition is that by not accepting his request for regularizing his previous service, the respondent management is causing injury to his employment "for the reason that the petitioner is not a member of a particular Trade Union, and that there are elements in the respondent establishment particularly belonging to employer cadre, those who create compelling circumstances for individual like petitioner to join trade union of their choice" which attitude, it is alleged, amounts to unfair labour practice. The allegation so made is of no help to the petitioner as he has not specified as to who amongst the employer cadre compelled/forced him to join trade union of their choice nor has he cared to name the trade union which he was forced to join. In the absence of these necessary details, vague and bald allegation made by the petitioner cannot be accepted as an act of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondent-management.
' As regards the cases of other employees cited by the petitioner in his affidavit, their service record has been examined by me and I find that these cases proceeded on their own facts.
6. Apart from what has been held above, the petition filed by the petitioner almost 15 years after his re-appointment also suffer from gross Laches and no cogent and convincing explanation has been given by him for this inordinate delay. Thus, viewed from whatsoever angle, this petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is accordingly dismissed.