1988 PLP 454 (PLC(CS))

Ch. Rasheed Ahmad for Appellant. Mahmood Iqbal for Respondent. Date of hearing: 26th July, 1987. This is an appeal against an impugned order, dated 31‑10‑1985 passed by the Sind Labour Court No.III, Karachi, who had dismissed the grievance petition under section 25‑A I.R.O. 1969, of the appellant.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant claimed to be a permanent workman of the respondent Corporation having more than 15 years of service to his credit as Auto Mechanic in the Transport Department and that he was granted an Ex‑Pakistan leave for 165 days with effect from 20‑11‑1983, but, on 2‑5‑1984, when he reported for duty at the Head Office on the expiry of the said leave he was not allowed to do so and was verbally directed to join the duties at Shahdad Kot Textile Mills. He further claimed that due to this arbitrary, illegal and abrupt action of verbal threats of transfer coupled with the threats of removal from service, he was mentally and physically effected, therefore, he rushed to the Medical Officer who had advised him complete rest. The appellant further claimed that thereafter he served a grievance notice upon the respondent Corporation and subsequently filed his grievance petition before the Labour Court with a prayer to set aside the verbal threats of transfer and to direct the respondent Corporation to take him back on duty with all consequential reliefs.

3. The respondent Corporation resisted the petition on two grounds. Firstly, that the appellant was rightly transferred to Shahdad Kot Textile Mills, vide General Order of Transfers dated 15‑1‑1984 A due to re‑organization of the P. I.D.C. under the orders of the Federal Government and thus the transfer of an employee was an inherent right of a management which cannot be challenged and that the request of the appellant for voluntarily retirement was also correctly refused. Secondly, it was the case of the respondent as the appellant did not disclose any fact from which any right guaranteed or secured was proved, therefore, under the provisions of section 25‑A, I.R.O. 1969, the petition before the learned Labour Court was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.

4. The learned Labour Court instead of passing the impugned order on merits, had upheld the legal objections of the respondent Corporation and dismissed the, grievance petition of the appellant, hence, the present appeal.

5. I have heard Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmad, the learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Mahmood lqbal, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Corporation and have carefully examined the legal aspects of the case. In view of the proposition and also the merits of the case, am of the view that the appellant was not entitled to maintain his grievance petition under section 25‑A I.R.O. 1969, as he had miserably failed to disclose that on account of his lawful transfer from Head Office of the P.I.D.C. Karachi to Shahdad? Kot Textile Mills, which is a Unit of the respondent Corporation, any right guaranteed or secured to him was infringed. In support of his pleadings, Mr. Mahmood lqbal the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent Corporation has rightly relied upon a case reported in 1970 P L C at page

819. Mr. Ch. Rasheed Ahmed, the learned Advocate for the appellant has nothing to acid in what he had already submitted before the learned Labour Court. The impugned order is well reasoned and need not to be interferred with. I would, therefore, hold the same view.

6. For the reasons stated by me above, I would maintain the impugned order and would dismiss this appeal. A.E. /1085/Lb.S?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.