1997 PLP 147 (PLC)

Asmat Kamal Khan for Petitioners. Ch. Fazal Elahi for Respondents. Date of hearing: 18th July, 1996. Younas Ali Bokhari and Tariq Mahmood Anjum are employees of the United Bank Limited and are working as Stenographers. They have been transferred from Lahore, to Narowal and Wazirabad, respectively. Their petition under section 25‑A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 was accompanied by an application for issuance of stay order, which was rejected by the learned Labour Court No. 3, Lahore, at Ferozewala, by an order announced on 26‑6‑1996, validity of which order has been called in question by way of the present revision petition.

2. According to the petitioners, they are active members of the trade union and have thus become a target of vindictiveness by the management, and their shifting has been ordered in a mala filed manner and not in routine, They have also taken up the plea of financial hardship, involved in the process of their shifting from Lahore to what they call far‑flung places. The impugned order, it is urged, is an unfair, inequitable and inconsiderate act on the part of the bank management. These averments have not found favour with the learned lower Court; and the request of the employees for suspending orders of transfers has, therefore, been turned down.

3. It can hardly be disputed that it is unfettered right of an employer to order transfer of a subordinate for administrative reasons, and such shifting, if it does not entail unusual or drastic curtailment of emoluments, cannot be called a mala fide or a motivated measure resorted to by the employer. It is commonly known that whenever an officer or official is transferred to a place which he does not relish, he will invariably attribute motives to the Authority. It, however, cannot just be assumed that the order of transfer is attended by malice or revengefulness on the part of the employer, if there are in existence no such circumstances and there is available no evidence to sustain such an allegation. Well, if the employees have an honest, a genuine conviction that their shifting has been ordered in a malicious manner, object being to deter them from pursuing their lawful trade union activities, in an organized way, and to bring the workmen generally under pressure, and they are of the firm belief that they will be able to establish it, they will be well‑advised to approach the N.I.R.C. for curbing this act of what they consider to be an unfair labour practice.

4. It has rightly been observed by the learned lower Court that an employee cannot claim as of right to serve at a place of his choice, and if it is a routine order of transfer, having administratively, in exigencies of service, been issued; it would hardly call for judicial interference, by High Court, even, in exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Transfer, certainly, is not a punishment, and an employer is not under a legal obligation to consult an employee before shifting him, or to assign cogent reasons justifying such an act. 'Humanitarian considerations' 'financial stringencies', 'personal reasons', 'family circumstances', etc. have never been considered to be sufficient grounds, calling for judicial interference, may, for even disentitling an Authority from passing an order of transfer, although these aspects and such grounds may be placed before superior officers for consideration, by making departmental representations. The learned Labour Court as such, has not taken an erroneous or perverse view of the matter, and has, by recording sound reasons, rejected the application of the employee for issuance of a stay order. The order is unexceptionable; and the revision petition has no merit, and is hereby dismissed, with costs. H.B.T./823/Lb.P Revision dismissed.