1996 PLP 103 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 22‑A(8)(g)‑‑‑Allegation of unfair labour practice by employers‑‑ Transfers of employees from one place of working to another had been challenged by employees alleging same as unfair labour practice on the part of employer‑‑‑Transfer of employees was a routine matter to meet day‑to‑day exigencies arising in establishment and nothing was on record to establish that such transfers were made as an act of victimisation due to certain lawful trade ,anion activities carried out by employees‑‑‑Transfer of employee was a prerogative of employer made in day‑to‑day affairs in the interest of service of establishment‑‑‑National Industrial Relations Commission would interfere and disturb such transfers only when there was a clear indication that same had been carried out as an act of victimisation on account of lawful trade union activities of employee within meaning of S. 15 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969‑‑‑Employees having failed to establish unfair labour practice on, the part of employer, their petition against employers was dismissed. Mehr Shah v. General Manager, G.T.S. etc. PLD 1988 SC 53; Muhammad Afzal v: Secretary, Education, Lahore etc. 1992 PLC (C.S.) 117 and Muhammad Nawaz v. General Manager, WAPDA etc. 1994 PLC 140 ref. Abdul Hafeez Amjad for Petitioners. S. Rais Ahmed Jafri for Respondents, This is a petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 filed by 13 employees of the establishment of House Building Finance Corporation with the contention that they are the Officers and Members of H.B.F.C, employees Union which is a registered trade union and also is the Collective Bargaining Agent of the Islamabad/Peshawar Zone. It was contended that due the lawful trade activities the petitioners were transferred to different places of the Collective Bargaining Unit of Islamabad/Peshawar Zone which constitutes unfair labour practice etc. Under such circumstances the petition was registered on 27‑6‑1994 and interim injunction order was issued in favour of the petitioners.

2. The petition was strongly contested by the respondents by way of filing of written statement and rejoinder to the stay application wherein certain preliminary legal objections as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the documents filed by them on record. The record of the case reveals that by way of different transfer orders which were passed on 26‑6‑1994 twenty‑five employees of the establishment of House Building Finance Corporation were transferred by the establishment to different places, out of which the present 14 petitioners became aggrieved and filed the instant petition. However, subsequently, it was revealed that in respect of four petitioners namely petitioner No. 1 Syed Imdad Hussain, petitioner No. 7 Abid Hussain, petitioner No. 8 Abdur Rehman and petitioner No. 13 Pervaiz Akhtar, the respondents have not issued any transfer order, therefore, in respect of the said four petitioners the petition has also become in fructuous. There is nothing on record to show any lawful trade union activity on the part of the petitioners, as the petitioners are only simple members of House Building Finance Corporation Employees' Union except the petitioner No. 10 Aurangzeb who is the Deputy Chairman of the House Building Finance Corporation Employees' Union (C.BA.). All the transfers of 25 persons were made on 26‑6‑1994 in routine matters of the day to day exigencies of service of establishment and there is nothing on record to establish that the transfers were made as an act of victimisation, due to certain lawful trade union activities, allegedly carried out by the petitioners. It is a well‑settled view that the transfer of employee is a prerogative of the employer and it is always done in the day to day affairs and exigencies of service of the establishment. This Commission will interfere and disturb such transfer only when there is a clear indication that the same has been carried out as an act of victimisation on account of lawful trade union activities of the employee within the meaning of section 15 of the I.R.O.,1969. I get support from the case‑law i.e. Mehr Shah v. General Manage, G.T.S. etc. reported in PLD 1988 SC 53 and also Muhammad Afzal v. Secretary, Education, Lahore etc. reported in 1992 PLC (C.S.) page 117 and Muhammad Nawaz v. General Manager, WAPDA etc. reported in 1994 PLC 140.

4. In view of the above discussion I am of the view that the petitioners have failed to establish that the said transfer orders dated 26‑6‑1994 are passed as an act of victimisation on account of their lawful trade union activities, therefore, I dismiss the petition without any orders as to costs. H.B.T./252/NIRC Petition dismissed.