1996 PLP 517 (PLC)
HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION WORKERS UNION OF PAKISTAN through Deputy General Secretary Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION through Zonal Manager and 2 others
| Citation | 1996 PLP 517 (PLC) |
| Forum / Court | National Industrial Relations Commission |
| Bench Members | Gohar Yaqoob Yousafzai, Member |
| Parties | HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION WORKERS UNION OF PAKISTAN through Deputy General Secretary Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION through Zonal Manager and 2 others |
| Primary Law | Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 517 (PLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 517 (PLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the National Industrial Relations Commission bench comprising: Gohar Yaqoob Yousafzai, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 517 (PLC) (HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION WORKERS UNION OF PAKISTAN through Deputy General Secretary Versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION through Zonal Manager and 2 others). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Muhammad Younus, Representative for Petitioner.
- S. Rais Ahmed Jafri for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 15 & 22-A(8)(g)
Employers, transferred employees to Azad Kashmir, territory which was not included in "Pakistan"-- Transfer of an employee from one place to another for exigencies of service or in routine matter or otherwise, was one of the fundamental rights of the employer
If the transfer was covered under the provisions of S. 15(b) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, National Industrial Relations Commission would interfere under S. 22-A(8)(g) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969-- Employee had been transferred to Azad Kashmir, territory of which was not included in Pakistan whereas terns and conditions of appointment of employee did not allow such transfer
Such transfer of employees would oust them from taking part in Trade Union activities which would amount to unfair labour practice within meaning of S. 15(b) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969-- Order transferring employees to Azad Kashmir, was declared to be illegal, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
The provision of Article 1, sub‑Article (2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 contemplated the territorial limits of Pakistan which reads as under: "
1. The Republic and its territories. ‑‑‑(I) Pakistan shall be a Federal Republic to be known as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, hereinafter referred to as Pakistan.
2. The territories of Pakistan shall comprise‑‑ (a). the Provinces of Balochistan, the North‑West Frontier, the Punjab and Sindh; (b) the Islamabad Capital Territory, hereinafter referred, the Punjab and Sindh; (c) the Federally Administered Tribal Areas; and (d) such States and territories as are or, may be included in Pakistan, whether by accession or otherwise." Thus, it becomes clear that the provision of I.R.O., 1969 where under the petitioner can claim lawful trade union activities, are not applicable to the area of the Azad Kashmir with the result that the petitioners will be ousted from the trade union activities if transferred to such areas. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are not the members of the H.B.F.C. Workers' Union but the members, of another union, will not make any difference to the above calculated legal proposition and in any case they will be ousted from taking part in the trade union activities if transferred to Azad Kashmir. Besides, the appointment letters of these petitioners contain terms and conditions of their appointment and clause (v) of the appointment letter contain the following words: "He will have to serve in anywhere in Pakistan. " The territory of Azad Kashmir is not included in "Pakistan" as discussed above therefore, on this score also, the respondents cannot transfer the petitioner outside from Pakistan.
5. At this stage, I feel the necessity to observe that it is well‑settled principle of law that transfer of an employee in the establishment from one place to another, for the exigencies of service or in routine matters or otherwise, is one of the fundamental right of the employer but if it is covered under the provision of section 15, subsection (b) of the I. R. O., 1969 then this Commission will interfere while adjudicating upon under the provision of section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969. In the case in hand, it is clear that neither the territory of Azad Kashmir is included in "Pakistan" as defined under Article 1, sub‑Article (2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 nor the terms and conditions of the appointment of the petitioners allow such transfers. Therefore, it will oust the petitioners from taking part in the trade union activities which amounts to unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15(d) of the I.R.O., 1969. Therefore, the petition is accepted and the transfer orders of the petitioners to Azad Kashmir is declared as illegal and unlawful. The respondents are restrained from transferring the said petitioners to Azad Kashmir. There shall be no orders as to costs. H.B.T./259/N.I.R.C. Petition accepted.