1995 PLP 751 (PLC)

This is a petition under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 wherein the petitioner contends that he is the Secretary of WAPDA Hydero Electric Central Labour Union (Attock Division) which is C.BA. of the Establishment of WAPDA throughout Pakistan. It was further contended that due to Political pressure and trade union activities the petitioner was transferred from Attock to Islamabad at the instance of one Jan Muhammad who has been newly promoted as Commercial Superintendent. After consideration of such averments, injunction order was granted in. favour of the petitioner on 14‑5‑1995 by this Commission.

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 were also raised as to the maintainability of the petition. In the meanwhile, an Intervener namely Jan Muhammad filed an application for joining the proceedings of the case. Both the learned counsel i.e. for the petitioner and the respondents do not object to the joining of the Intervener in the proceedings.

3. I have heard all the learned counsel for the parties and have considered all the relevant documents with their help.

4. The petitioner was transferred from Attock to Islamabad vide Transfer Order dated 8‑5‑1995. This transfer order reveals that the Intervener namely Jan Muhammad was transferred in place of the petitioner, being newly promoted to the post of Commercial Superintendent. It seems that the office order dated 8‑5‑1995 is a routine transfer order by the respondents, which is fundamental right of the employer in the smooth functioning of the establishment. There is nothing on record to establish that this office order dated 8‑5‑1995 was a result of victimisation on account of trade union activities of the petitioner. The jurisdiction of this Commission has been limited under the provision of section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969 to the extent of the Commission of unfair labour practice by the employer within the meaning of sections 15 and 16 of the I.R.O.,1969. As stated above, the petitioner has failed to establish a case of unfair labour practice within the ambit of section 15 of the I.R.O.,1969 and therefore, in the absence of any such material, constituting unfair labour practice, this Commission cannot disturb the normal function of an establishment which otherwise, will be negative of the basic rights of the employer as already held in various cases, for instance Muhammad Nawaz etc. v. General Manager, WA DA reported in 1994 PLC page 140, wherein it was held that the transfer is the prerogative of the employer in the better interest of the establishment and Muhammad Afzal v. Secretary, Education, Lahore etc. reported in 1992 PLC (C.S.) page 117 and 1994 PLC page 284 etc.

5. As a result of the above discussion I have no other alternative but to declare that the petition is not maintainable which is dismissed accordingly. The interim order dated 14‑5‑1995 is recalled. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./233/NIRC Petition dismissed.