M.A.GHAFFAR KHAN.O.G.III, U.B.L. Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED

ORDER

M.S.H. QUARISHI (CHAIRMAN).‑‑ This appeal has been heard under subsection (4) of section 22‑B of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 in the absence of Mr. Ashraf Ali, J.S. Labour, who is pre‑occupied.

2.The appeal had been filed from the dismissal on 16‑5‑1987, by a Single Bench of this Commission, of the appellant's petition titled;

"Grievance petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 read with section 22‑A(8)(g) and Regulation 32(2) of the N.I.R.C. (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973."

The petition had been filed to challenge the transfer order dated 22‑11‑1979 and the subsequent termination order dated 10‑6‑1982 on the ground inter‑alia: "that termination order is based on victimization as petitioner has been elected as President of U.B.L. Workers' Union, Lahore Zone on 19‑4‑1982 and this fact was in the knowledge of Bank's Management who victimized on account of the trade union activities. "

3. The petition was, however, dismissed not upon discussion of any evidence produced by the parties before the learned Bench but on the basis of the finding by Punjab Labour Court in earlier litigation wherein the said transfer dated 22‑11‑1979 had been called in question through a grievance petition. The learned Bench held:

"The extract of the judgment of Punjab Labour Court No.l which has been reproduced by me in paragraph No.2 above gives the findings on facts by that Court that the petitioner is an officer and a member of Officers Association and that his membership of workers union was mala fide and with the intention to get benefit of transfer." In the light of the above finding, the learned Single Bench held that: "Being a member of the officer association he was a member of the employer association and thus, an employer. Consequently he had no locus‑standi to invoke section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 because the protection of that section could only be invoked by a workman and not an employer'.

4. We have gone through the said judgment of the Punjab Labour Court No.l dated 15‑1‑1980 but we find that in para 6 of the judgment that Court had expressly held that the petitioner was a worker and that as such his petition under section 25‑A of the I.R.0., was competent. Against this finding the Bank had even gone in appeal which was appeal No.LHR 77 of 1980 Punjab which appeal had been dismissed. This aspect of the matter is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the Bank. That being so the impugned order passed, as it, is upon a mistaken view of the finding of the Labour Court, is not sustainable and has to be set aside. The Single Bench shall have to reach its own conclusion upon material before it.

5. Of the two orders in challenge before the learned Single Bench, we find that the order of transfer dated 22‑11‑1979 is not open to challenge as that order had been subject matter of litigation starting from the Punjab Labour Court and going right upto the Supreme Court in which the appellant had failed throughout. It is, therefore, not now open to him to reagitate the matter.

6. It is also clarified that the petition before this Commission could lie only on the ground of unfair labour practice under section 27‑A(8)(g) and not under section 25‑A of the I.R.O. Grounds taken in the petition which are not relevant to an allegation of unfair labour practice cannot be pressed into service.

7.With this observation, we set aside the impugned judgment D and remand the case for a fresh decision in the light of the evidence already produced by the parties.

A.A.‑/120/N.I.R. Case remanded: