M. MUZAFFAR ALI vs CHAIRMAN, N.I.R.C. and others

' This judgment will dispbse of W.Ps. Nos. 1384, 1385 and 1491 of 1975 which arises out of similar circumstances and in which same questions fall for determination.

2. The petitioner in W.P. No, 1384 of 1975 was, at the relevant time working as a Security Officer in the employment of Pakistan International Airlines. He submitted a report to the District Manager, Lahore (Petitioner in W.P. 1385 of 1975) informing him of the alleged misconduct by some other employees of the P.IA. At Lahore Airport. On the basis of this report, certain members of the P.IA. Staff were proceeded against departmentally and were later on dismissed by the Director Sales and Marketing. On an application filed by respondent No, 2, who was one of such employees, under sections 15(1)(c) and (d) read with section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, the Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission (respondent No, 1 herein) summoned the petitioner herein (the Security Officer) the District Manager (petitioner in W.P. 1385 of 1975) and the four Inquiry Officers (petitioners in W.P. 1491 of 1975). The common grievance in all these petitions is that on the basis of the allegations made in the application filed by respondent No, 2 itself, no case of unfair labour practice was made out in terms of section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and as such the assumption of jurisdiction by respondent No, 1 and the issuance of notices to the petitioners for facing criminal trial on the charge of having committed unfair labour practice was wholly unfounded.

3. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners in all these petitions have been heard and the available record perused. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

4. The complaint made by respondent No, 2, on the basis of which jurisdiction was assumed by respondent No, 1, was filed under section 15(1)(c) and (d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which reads as under:-- "15(1). No employer or trade union of employers and no person acting on behalf of either shall--

(c) discriminate against any person in regard to any employment, promotion, condition of employment or working condition on the ground that such person is or is not a member or officer of a trade union, or

(d) dismiss, discharge, remove from employment or transfer or threaten to dismiss, discharge or remove from employment or transfer a workman or injure or threaten to injure him in respect of his employment by reason that the workman--

(i) is or proposes to become, or seeks to persuade any other person to become, a member or officer of a trade union, or

(ii) participates in the promotion, formation or activities of a trade union."

' A perusal of the allegations made in the complaint filed by respondent No, 2 shows that the allegations, even if correct, do not attract any of the clauses of section 15, nor was a case of unfair labour practice made out. The petitioners were acting in lawful performance of their duties and it was in that connection that they made the reports and held inquiries. The assumption of jurisdiction on the ground that the allegations were not correct, or the show-cause notices and the inquiry were defective, was clearly uncalled for as none of the acts complained of amounted to unfair labour practices. It is thus evident that respondent No, 1 acted in excess of his lawful authority in assuming jurisdiction and issuing impugned notices to the petitioners.

5. For the foregoing reasons, all these writ petitions are allowed, but with no order as to costs and the impugend notices of respondent No, 1 are declared to have been issued without lawful authority and are of no legal effect.