' This application under section 22A(8)(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 has been filed by Fawad Aslam stating that he joined service on 1-2-1994 and has been continuously performing his duties without any break. He is a workman as he has been performing, manual, clerical and technical duties. His father Haji Muhammad Aslam Firdousi has been President of All Pakistan PWD Workers Union (CBA) Lahore and Vice-President of All Pakistan Federation of Trade Unions of which the petitioner is an active member. In that capacity, he has been taking active part in the formation, promotion and activities of the trade union which were continued by him in spite of threats by the respondents to leave his activities. Due to that the respondents have not regularized the petitioner and have been extending threats of removal from service which constitutes unfair labour practice. According to Government policy announced vide letters dated 4-2-1993 and 7-7- 1994 all ad hoc employees have been regularized but the petitioner has been discriminated on account of his trade union activities. It is also mentioned that the petitioner has become permanent workman in the light of Standing Order 1(b) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employments (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 and cannot be removed from service. It has, therefore, been prayed that the respondents be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner and should not remove him from service.
2. The petition was admitted for hearing on 27-11-1997 and status quo position was maintained in the meanwhile. The respondents were given a notice for filing parawise comments. The respondents sought several adjournments and finally filed parawise comments on 13-11-1998. The petitioner produced affidavit-in-evidence and he was also cross-examined. The respondents relied upon the written comments and the affidavit attached therewith.
3. Arguments were heard. The counsel for the petitioner repeated the facts mentioned in the petition and urged that he was not being regularized only on the ground that he was son of Muhammad Aslam Firdousi, who is President of the Union. The representative for the respondents referred to the written statement and stated that the petitioner was a civil servant and was appointed as Highway Inspector hence the Commission has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter in respect of terms and conditions of service as held in PLD 1984 Lah.
294. He further pointed out that the appointment of the petitioner was extended from time to time and lastly up to 31-12-1997. As per policy announced by the Government dated 27-8-1998, regular appointments will be made through respective Departmental Selection Committees after observing the laid down procedure.
4. I have gone through the record of the case and have considered the arguments. The petitioner appeared as his own witness and during cross-examination admitted that he was appointed as Highway Inspector on work-charged basis and that his appointment was extended on work- charged basis up to 31-12-1997. No extension was made by the department thereafter. He also admitted that he supervised the roads and about 13/14 employees were working under him and he supervised their work. He filed an application for regularization which was rejected because his father is the President of the Union. It is, therefore, evident that the petitioner was appointed in a supervisory capacity and he is a civil servant, hence the present petition which relates to the matter of regularization falls within the jurisdiction of Services Tribunal. Further, merely because the petitioner is a son of Muhammad Aslam Firdousi, President of the Union, this fact alone would not bring the matter within the ambit of unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents. It is clearly mentioned in the written statement filed by the respondents that in view that directions issued by the Government vide S&GAD Letter No,SRR. III-2(1)/94(P) dated 27-8-1998, the regular appointments will be made through respective Departmental Selection Committee after observing the procedure. The petitioner was employed only upto 31-12-1997. In view of the above discussion, the N.I.R.C., has no jurisdiction in the matter and the present petition is not maintainable. The same shall be returned to the petitioner by the office for seeking order appropriate remedy before the competent forum. The interim order granted on 27-11-1997 stands vacated.