1999 PLP 40 (PLC)

By a short judgment, that I propose to deliver, I shall be disposing of both the above‑captioned appeals, having been preferred by the wife and the husband, both being employees of the P.I.A., after they have failed to secure the requisite relief from the Labour Court, Faisalabad.

2. Both of them had filed grievance petitions, under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, seeking rescission of the orders of their transfer, having been rendered by the Authorities on 25‑2‑1998.

3. Mrs. Shakira belongs to Pay Group No.4 and Mr. A.B. Tarique to Pay Group

5. Section 1(3)(c) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, envisages exclusion of provisions of the Ordinance, respecting the employees, who are members of the Security Staff of the P.I.A., or who are drawing wages in Pay Group No. 5, and above. Thus, Mr. A.B. Tarique could not invoke the aid of the Labour Laws, by resorting to a Labour Court, and the remedy lay, in his having access to some other forum, say, the Federal Service Tribunal. This is what has been observed by the learned lower Court, which has declined to afford any relief to Mr. Tarique because of lack of jurisdiction. The finding is unexceptionable; and the mere fact that malice, mala fides or political motives have been attributed to the Authorities in the matter would be of no help, as such pleas can be invoked by any official in the event of his shifting and a Court of law must refuse to pay any heed to a plea of this kind.

4. As regards Mrs. Shakira Tarique also, the Labour Court could not possibly come to her rescue, as the service under P. I. A. would attract the mischief stipulated by section 2‑A, inserted in June, 1997, in the Federal Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act, 1997. Service under the Corporation will now be treated to be service of Pakistan and every employee of the Corporation will be deemed to be a civil servant. P.I.A. is a Corporation being run under the authority and the control of the Federal Government and the same will admit of no confusion as regards exclusion of jurisdiction of the labour forum in the matter. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has urged that a transfer matter is also covered by the term unfair labour practice', and under section 22‑A (12) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, a Labour Court can also deal with a case of unfair labour practice, and the aggrieved person need not necessarily approach the N.I.R.C. He has advocated another aspect of the matter. According to him, the parties should have been called upon to lead evidence for and against the allegation of unfair labour practice, or the employee having been victimised for his or her trade union activity, and on appraisal of such evidence only the Court could form a definite view in that regard. Well, if such a plea is permitted to prevail, it will become well nigh impossible for a superior authority to order transfer of a subordinate, may it be wholly in public interest or in the exigencies of service. I, for one, cannot subscribe to such a view. It is the prerogative of the employer to transfer an employee to any place within the 'permissible circle'. These persons have stuck to Faisalabad for a long time and must not grudge their shifting from there.

5. The mere fact that with the insertion of section 2‑A in the Federal Service Tribunals Act, 1973, the P.I.A. employees can no longer have access to a labour forum, the Labour Court or this Tribunal would be precluded from entertaining grievance petition or appeal. There is no merit in the appeals, which are hereby dismissed with costs. H.B.T./936/Lb.P Appeals dismissed