' Rukhsana Bashir, Telex Operator, PTC, Lahore has filed this petition under section 15(1)(c) of I.R.O., 1969 against the orders, dated 6-8-1998 and 26-6-1998 respectively passed by respondents Nos.1 and 2.
2. Facts forming the background of this petition briefly are that two petitions bearing Nos.4A(3559) of 1995-L and 4A(171) of 1996-L, were filed before this Commission by two sets of employees of PTC.
Seven Telephone Operators filed petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 (Case No,4A(3559) of 1995-L) before this Commission against the Departmental authorities and 08 Telex Operator (respondents 4 to 11) making a grievance therein that they being senior in service, were entitled to be sent to ES.III (Electrical) Course but they were ignored and instead their juniors viz. Respondents Nos.4 to 11 therein were sent to the said course which would entitle them to promotion. A direction was accordingly sought to be issued, to the. Departmental Authorities that they should consider them for promotion to the next higher post or at least sent them for training in the said course. The petition was admitted to regular hearing on 21-12-1995 and by way of interim relief, it was directed that the petitioners therein if really senior to the assignee for the course, and if having clean record, should also be sent to join the course in question. It appears that the employees who had earlier been sent for training in ES.III (Electrical) Course also brought a petition (Case No,4-A(171) of 1996- L), on 24-1-1996 claiming therein that since they had already qualified TL.III Training Course, they were entitled to be deputed for training in ES.III. (Electrical) Course and were rightly sent to the said course by the Departmental Authorities. They accordingly prayed that they may be allowed to complete the training course of E.S.III. (Electrical).
3. The aforementioned two petitions were consolidated and heard by Agha Saleem Khurshid, the then Member, NIRC who by his order, dated 5-8-1996, accepted both the petitions and directed the Departmental Authorities to allow the petitioners therein to join the training and complete the course. Learned Member also directed the authorities to pay Rs,2,000 as cost to each petitioner.
4. The Departmental Authorities filed two Appeals bearing Nos.12(105) of 1996-L and 12(106) of 1996- L, against the orders of the learned Single Member which were accepted by the Full Bench of this Commission vide order, dated 14-4-1998, and the impugned order of the learned Single Member was set aside. It, however, appears and in fact it has been so observed by the Full Bench of this Commission in its order, dated 14-4-1998 that the respondents in the appeals completed the course during the pendency of the proceedings before the Single Bench and the Full Bench.
5. After the acceptance of the appeals filed by the Department, Deputy General Manager, Respondent No,2 issued an order, dated 26-6-1998 (Annexure A with this petition) directing to withdraw all the benefits gained by the petitioners (whose names were mentioned in the list enclosed therewith) and not to, promote them on the basis of ES.III Training. Name of the present petitioner was included in the said list. In compliance with the order of Deputy General Manager.
The Divisional Engineer, Respondent No,1 by his order, dated 14-9-1998 (Annexure B) withdrew the benefits of two advance increments gained by the Telex Operators named therein including the present petitioner and further directed that they may not be promoted on the basis of ES.III.
Training and refixed theirpay.
6. Aggrieved of the afore-referred orders passed by the respondents, the petitioner has filed the instant petition, contending that these orders were passed on wrong interpretation and in illegal implementation of the orders of the Full Bench, dated 14-4-1998. Her case is that respondents Nos.1 and 2 had allowed her to join the training course of ES.III, which she completed in the year 1996 and was declared successful by the Director, Telecom. (Training), Lahore Cantt. Vide Notification, dated 29-10-1996. It is also casually urged in ground (e) of the petition that the impugned orders are "clearly the result of unfair labour practice".
7. The respondents in their reply have raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner is not a member of any trade union and as such her case does not fall under section 15 of I.R.O., 1969 and this Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter. The objection raised by the respondents appears to be quite valid and it has not been seriously contested by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that she is the member/office-bearer of any of the trade unions functioning/operating in the establishment in which she is employed nor has it been alleged in her petition that the impugned action has been taken against her on account of her trade union activities. She has not even alleged to be an ordinary member of any Trade Union. As noted above, the petitioner has simply stated in ground (e) of her petition and that too in passing that the impugned orders passed by the respondents are the result of unfair labour practice and she has made this averment presumably to attract the jurisdiction of this Commission. Needless to observe that the jurisdiction of this Commission is confined only to those cases which have an element of unfair labour practice. Acts of unfair labour practice on the part of the employer are specified in various clauses of section 15(1) of I.R.O., 1969 and the case of the petitioner is not shown nor even alleged to fall within the purview of any of these clauses. The orders impugned in this petition are shown to have been passed by the respondents with a view to implement the orders of the Full. Bench of this Commission passed in the appeals filed by the departmental authorities and as observed above, the grievance made by the petitioner is that in passing the impugned order, the respondents have misinterpreted and wrongly applied the orders of the Full Bench of this Commission. It is not the case of the petitioner that the impugned orders have been passed to victimise her on account of her trade union activities. In fact, as stated above, she has not even claimed to be the member/office-bearer of any trade union. It may also be pertinently pointed out that the impugned orders have been passed not in respect of the petitioner alone but against all those employees who gained some benefits and claimed promotion on the basis of ES.III. Training Course. Petitioner cannot, therefore, complain that she has been subjected to any discrimination. A point was, however, raised on behalf of the petitioner C during the course of the hearing of this petition that in an identical case filed by one Mst.. Misbah Naheed against PTCL, the department redressed her grievance and she had withdrawn her petition filed before this Commission. On my direction, the petitioner has filed a proper application stating therein that her colleague Mst. Misbah Naheed, had filed a Petition No,7(418) of 1998-L, seeking similar relief as is sought by the present petitioner and she withdrew that petition as her grievance was redressed by the departmental authorities and two increments granted to her on the basis of the ES.III. Course, have not been withdrawn nor any deduction has been made from her salary, while deduction is being made from the salary of the petitioner which is an act of discrimination and victimisation.
From the submission made by, the learned counsel for the parties, it appears that after the impugned orders were passed by the respondents, directing, inter alia, to withdraw the benefits granted on the basis of ES.III. Training Course, Mst. Misbah Naheed, moved an. Application No,7(418) of 1998-L, before the Full Bench of this Commission on 17-9-1998. The Full Bench by an interim order, dated 25-9-1998 restrained the deduction/recovery of the amount received by Misbah Naheed and subsequently entrusted her application to a learned Single Member. Misbah Naheed, withdrew her application on 25-9-1999 stating that her grievance had been redressed.
' Learned counsel appearing for PTCL states today that the recovery from the salary of Misbah Naheed was not made in view of the interim restraint order passed by the Full Bench in her petition and after she withdrew her petition on 25-9-1999, the interim order passed in her favour came to end and, therefore, departmental authorities have now issued a letter, dated 2-8-2000 directing that the recovery due to refixation of pay of Misbah Naheed may be made in the light of the earlier order, dated 26-6-1998 to avoid discrimination with her other colleagues. Learned counsel has produced copy of the letter, dated 2-8-2000 which has been placed on the present record. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the PTCL that except for Misbah Naheed and the present petitioner, no other affected employee has challenged the orders for the recovery of the amount paid to them as a result of refixation of their pay on the basis of ES.III Training Course. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to controvert the aforementioned facts. That being so, the petitioner can no more rely upon the case of Mst. Misbah Naheed to allege discrimination.
8. Upshot of the above discussion is, that the petitioner having failed to make out any case of unfair labour practice, this Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with this petition which is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable, with the observation that the petitioner, if so advised, may agitate her grievance of misinterpretation and illegal implementation of the impugned orders in appropriate proceedings before a competent forum.