' The three petitioners named above have filed this petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 against the Management of Pak News Private Limited and its Managing Director, respondent No,2 and Pak News Employees Union, respondent No,3. The petitioner in their petition have alleged that they were the members/office-bearers of the union but subsequently without holding proper elections, the change of office-bearers was submitted by respondent No,3 and their change was accepted by the Registrar of Trade Unions vide his letter dated 13-8-1997. They allege that the respondent No,3 is in collusion with the Management and its Managing Director, respondent No,2 and they are not working in the interest of workers but are working as pocket union of the Management. They have alleged that 7th Wage Board Commission made Award due to which some benefits were provided to the employees of newspapers but that Award was not being implemented by either respondent No,2 nor it was being pressed by respondent No,3 union for implementation. The petitioners made many complaints to respondents Nos.1 and 2 for implementation of Award and also made applications and complaints against respondent No,3 for holding fresh election and also they gave notice of no confidence motion to respondent No,3 union and also to the Director of Labour but in spite of that no action was 'taken. The petitioners allege that they also made applications to the Chairman Implementation Tribunal for providing them benefits of Award to newspaper employees but yet no action was taken on their such application.
They allege that due to their applications/complaints, the Management was not happy with them and they were asking the petitioners to withdraw their demands of 7th Wage Board Award otherwise they will be terminated. They have further alleged that they refused to withdraw their demand either of 7th Wage Board Award or their applications/complaints against the union, therefore, the respondents Nos.1 and 2 threatened them of dismissal from service. The petitioners, therefore, filed this petition with prayer that the respondents may be restrained from dismissing, terminating or removing them from service or committing acts of unfair labour practice against the petitioners.
2. The respondents filed written comments in which they denied various allegations of the petitioners. They stated that the dispute of union is between petitioners and respondent No,3 and the Management has nothing to do with the dispute of the union. As regards the 7th Wage Board Award, it was stated that no newspaper Company has yet implemented the said Award and, therefore, only respondents Nos.1 and 2 cannot be blamed for that. They further stated that even otherwise if the Award is not implemented then there is procedure and mechanism for its implementation.. The Chairman has been appointed for implementation of Award and the petitioners are at liberty to approach the said Chairman and in fact they have approached the said Chairman and now it is within the power and domain of the said Chairman to implement the Award. They have stated that by non-implementing the said Award, the respondents have not committed unfair labour practice. They further stated that the respondents have not asked the petitioners to withdraw their demand of fresh elections or implementation of Award. They further stated that due to abolishing of posts on which the petitioners were ' working, their services were terminated vide order dated 16-4-2002. They stated that since the petitioners are terminated employees; hence they cannot file this petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969 as apprehended unfair labour practice has already been completed and now it is beyond the powers and jurisdiction of this Commission to reinstate the employee terminated prior to the filing of this petition under section 22-A (8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969.
3. I have heard the learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned Advocate for the respondents.
I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and documents filed by them.
4. At the very outset the learned Advocates for the respondents Mr. Mahboob Rizvi pointed out to me that the petitioners are terminated employees and their termination orders were issued on 16- 4-2002, therefore, they cannot file this petition and this Court cannot reinstate the said petitioners in exercise of its civil powers under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969.
5. As against this Mr. Gohar Iqbal learned advocate for the petitioners argued that the petitioners had filed petition under section 22-A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 on 15-6-2002 and the stay order of this Court was served upon the respondents on 16-4-2002 and after receipt of stay order of this Court the respondents terminated the services of the petitioners so as to nullify the stay order of this Court. He has argued that since the petitioners were in service at the time of passing of stay order; hence the respondents can be directed to reinstate them in service.
6. I have considered the arguments of learned Advocates for the parties in juxtaposition with the documents filed by them.
7. The respondents have produced three termination orders of three petitioners which are dated 16-4-2002. In this context, the version of the respondents is that before the receipt of stay order, they had already terminated the services of the petitioners and had issued such termination orders and had also posted their termination orders to the petitioners on their home addresses as on the said date viz 16-4-2002 the petitioners were not present. Learned Advocate for the respondents argued that in fact the termination orders were passed in the morning of 16-4-2002 and they were dispatched in the morning of 16-4-2002 whereas the stay order was received from this Court at about 2-30 p.m. While the stay order communicated by the petitioner by TCS was received by the respondents at 11-30 a.m.
8. The learned Advocate for the petitioners argued that in fact the termination orders were passed after receipt of stay order and respondents knowing about the stay order put previous date which fact is clear that the petitioners did not receive the termination orders from respondent Nos.1 and 2.
He argued that since the termination orders were not received by the petitioners; hence the termination orders have no legal value.
9. The arguments of learned Advocate for the respondents appear to be sound. I am not inclined to believe that termination orders were passed after receipt of stay order by respondents Nos.1 and 2.
I also do not believe that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 have put previous date on the termination orders. Admittedly the respondent No,2 is highly educated and he must be knowing law and its implications. Had the intention of respondents been to nullify the stay order, they could easily put previous date of 14 or 15-4-2002 in the termination orders but their bona fide is clear that they put the date on termination orders when they were issued. Nothing could have prevented them from putting any date prior to date 16-4-2002 after they came to know that stay order has been passed by this Court on 15-4-2002. Merely on the surmises and conjectures of the petitioners, it could not be said that the termination orders were passed after the receipt of stay order of this Court. As already pointed out, had it been so the respondents could not have entangled themselves and could not have put themselves in peril of facing criminal proceedings. I am, therefore, satisfied with the bona fide of respondents Nos.1 and 2 that in fact orders of termination were issued prior to receipt of stay order by them. The contention of learned Advocate for the petitioners that since the petitioners have not received the termination orders hence the termination orders have no legal value or legal force. The contention is not correct. The effective date of termination orders is the date when they were signed and not the .Date of receipt of the termination letters by the employee.
Reliance in this connection can be placed on 2001 PLC 79, 1995 SCM R 1178 and 1960 Patna 283..
10. The above authorities make it abundantly clear that it is the date of signing of termination orders which is effective date and not the date of receipt of termination order by the employee.
11. The next contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is that in fact the termination orders were dispatched by night post office which means that the termination orders were posted after 3-00 p.m. From this, he tried to argue that the contention of respondents is wrong that the termination orders were dispatched in the morning of 16-4-2002.
12. The petitioners have also filed contempt proceedings in which similar dispute was agitated and the office from the Franchised Post Office was examined to clarify about the night post office. I will be dealing with this aspect of the case in the contempt proceedings. However, as already held by me the respondents had dispatched the termination orders of the petitioners in the morning. On record, it is admitted that the petitioners are terminated employees. They have prayed that the respondents may, be restrained from terminating the services of the petitioners but since they have been terminated, this Court cannot grant them the relief prayed for by them. The petitioners have alleged that as an act of unfair labour practice, the respondents are threatening to terminate them but the said threat has been completed and, therefore, this Commission has no power to grant them status quo ante nor this Court has jurisdiction to reinstate them in exercise of civil powers under section 22-A(8)(g) of I.R.O., 1969.
13. Learned Advocate for the respondents pointed out to me that the petitioners have made complaints pertaining to years 1999, 2000 and 2001 as the basis for unfair labour practice. He argued that these complaints are very old and had the respondents become annoyed due to their complaint, the respondents could have taken action against the petitioners at the time of applications/complaints and not after a long time when there was no complaint or application from the petitioners. This argument is borne out from the documents produced by the petitioners themselves. The contention of the respondents has sufficient force. The past transaction cannot be made the basis of unfair labour practice.
In view of above discussed facts and circumstances, I have come to a definite conclusion that the petition of the petitioners is not maintainable as they are terminated employees and this Court cannot reinstate them. The remedy for the petitioners is not this Court but lies with some other proper forum. In the circumstances, the petition being not maintainable, hence it is dismissed alongwith stay application.