' ZIA MAHMOOD MIRZA (CHAIRMAN).---This appeal under section 22-D of I.R.O., 1969 is directed against the order, dated 24-4-1995 passed by the then Chairman of this Commission whereby he upheld the order of the petitioner's appointment dated 24th of July, 1990 and set aside the order, dated 12-8-1990 cancelling the said appointment and gave the respondent herein an option to join the service if he so wished with further direction to the appellant-management "to give an opportunity to the petitioner to make up his mind if he so wishes and exercised his option of joining or not joining within 15 days".
2. Facts giving rise to this appeal as set out in the impugned order, briefly stated, are that Kausar Hussain Shah respondent was appointed as soap cutter in Sargroh Vegetable Chee and General Mills, Faisalabad (hereinafter called the Mills) vide letter of appointment dated 24-7-1990. The respondent allegedly reported for duty on the same day but he could not join the service as his papers were not complete. It appears that the respondent did not or could not join the service upto 12-8-1990 when the management of the Mills cancelled/withdrew the letter of his appointment saying that "we cannot wait for an indefinite period. Therefore, we hereby recall/cancel/withdraw the said Letter No,SVG/PER/90/201, dated 24-7-1990 with immediate effect". This was vide order/letter dated 12-8-1990. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent filed a petition in this Commission under section 22-A(8)(g) read with section 15 of I.R.O., 1969 on 28-8-1994 i,e, after four years of the cancellation of his appointment alleging therein that he was appointed as soap cutter on 24-7- 1990 arid he reported for duty the same day but he could not join service as his papers were not complete. It was further alleged by the respondent that on the very day of his appointment, he was approached by Shaheen Workers' Union and pursuaded to join the said union which he refused to do. On his refusal, the office-bearers of the union became inimical to him and consequently, the said union in connivance with the Mills- management brought a petition before this Commission on 4-8-1990 seeking cancellation of his appointment letter though he was not made a party therein. Notice of the petition filed by the union was sent to the Management of the Mills for 23-8- 1990. Case of the respondent was that after receiving notice from the NIRC and on pursuation of the office-bearers of the union, the management withdrew his appointment letter on 12-8-1990 and thereafter the union withdrew its petition pending before his Commission on 26-8-1990. The delay of four years in filing the petition was sought to be explained by contending that the respondent came to know that the appellant had terminated his services on account of the case having been filed by the union for cancellation of his appointment and thereafter he searched for the requisite papers/the application filed by the union in NIRC and having got the same, he filed the petition in this Commission. It was further alleged by the respondent that he had been victimised for refusing to become a member of the union and the order of termination dated 12-8- 1990 was issued by the appellant to please the union which was an act of unfair labour practice on the part of the appellant. It was accordingly prayed by the respondent that the letter dated 12-8- 1990 cancelling his appointment be set aside with further direction to the appellant not to vitimise him on account of his not becoming a Member of the trade union and not to commit further acts of unfair labour practice and to reinstate him in service with full back benefits.
3. Perusal of the original file shows that the petition filed by the respondent came up for hearing before the then Chairman of this Commission on 19-2-1995 when the respondent made a statement that "he would not like to produce evidence but would prefer to argue the case". The petition was accordingly adjounred to 14-3-1995 for arguments. It appears that the arguments were heard on 14-3-1995 and thereafter the then Chairman passed the order impugned in this appeal on 24-4-1995.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that on the allegations made in the petition filed by the respondent, no case of unfair labour practice was made out against the appellant even prima facie nor was any unfair labour practice proved on the record as the respondent led no evidence in support of his petition. Learned counsel has further submitted that the petition filed by the respondent four years after the impugned cancellation of his appointment was hit by gross laches but the learned Single Bench did not advert to this aspect of the matter and proceeded to allow the petition without attending to the question of laches.
5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and find considerable force in them. It is an admitted position that the respondent filed the petition before this Commission four years after the cancellation of his appointment but we find that no cogent/reasonable explanation for this inordinate delay has been furnished by him. We have examined paras. 5 and 6 of the petition wherein the respondent sought to explain the delay in filing the petition. The averment made in para. 5 is that the respondent was not informed by the management that "his letter of appointment had been withdrawn on account of the case having been filed in the National Industrial Relations Commission by the union". He further proceeded to state in para. 6 of the petition that on coming to know that he had been terminated for the aforesaid reason, he searched for the requisite papers pertaining to the filing of the petition by the union in this Commission and after getting hold of the same, he filed the petition and as such "there has been no intentional and deliberate delay in approaching this Hon'ble Commission".
These averments/assertions do not show that the respondent had no knowledge/information about the cancellation/withdrawal of his appointment letter up to the date of filing the petition. It was not so specifically alleged by him and even if he had made such an allegation, it would not be acceptable as it does not stand to reason that the respondent remained ignorant about the cancellation of his appointment/termination of his service for four long years. As regards the plea /hat the respondent was not informed by the management that the letter of his appointment was withdrawn on account of the case having been filed against him by the union, it may be observed that the reason alleged by him for withdrawing his appointment letter runs counter to the reason mentioned in the letter of " termination dated 12-8-1990 viz. The failure of, the respondent to join the service. In any case, the alleged want of information about what according to the respondent was the reason for withdrawing the letter of his appointment could hardly be a valid justification for not filing the petition against the cancellation of his appointment for four years. It may also be pointed out with reference to the averments made in para. 6 of the petition that the respondent did not state therein as to how and when he came to know that his appointment was cancelled for the reason stated/alleged by him. Not only that, the respondent also did not disclose as to when the so-called requisite papers pertaining to the petition filed against him by the union came into his possession and how were these papers necessary for challenging the cancellation of his appointment. The respondent thus failed to show that he had any valid justification or good cause for filing the petition to challenge the cancellation of his appointment after four years. This petition in our view, clearly suffered from gross laches and was liable to be dismissed on this short ground but the learned Single Bench accepted it without duly attending to and applying mind to this crucial aspect of the matter.
6. We also find that the case brought by the respondent did not involve any element of unfair labour practice. The learned Single Bench seems to have accepted the bare allegation made by the respondent in his petition that the withdrawal of his appointment letter was the result of his refusal to join the Shaheen Workers' Union. Apart from the fact that the allegation made in that behalf in the petition was not supported by any evidence which as noted above was not produced/recorded in this case, even the bare allegation that the respondent was contacted by the union and asked to join it on the day when he was appointed does not appeal to reason. In any case, the allegation so made by the respondent does not constitute unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15(1) of I.R.O., 1969 as it is not his case that he was asked/persuaded or coerced by his employer/management of the Mills to join the trade union and on his refusal to do so, his appointment letter, was cancelled/withdrawn by the employer. Even otherwise, the respondent having chosen not to produce any evidence, the allegation, if any, of unfair labour practice against the appellant/employer has remained unproved. This aspect of the matter, too, has not been looked into by the learned Single Bench.
' The upshot of the above discussion is that the petition filed by the respondent under section 22- A(8)(g) of I.R.O., to challenge the cancellation of his appointment did not involve any element of unfair labour practice and as such it was not maintainable and in any case, it suffered from gross laches and merited dismissal on this short ground. For all these reasons, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the learned Single Bench and dismiss the petition filed by the respondent under section 22-A(8)(g) of I R O .