2010 PLP 445 (PLC)

BASHIR AHMED MEMON, (MEMBER).

This is an application under Regulation 32(2)(c) of NIRC(P&F) Regulations, 1973 supported by affidavit filed by petitioner along with petition under section 25(8)(g) of the IRA, 2008 against the respondents.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is employed with the respondents and is working as Storekeeper Engineering for about 24 years and is having an unblemished record of service at his credit. He is President of Pearl Continental Hotel Employees Union, Karachi which is non-CBA. The petitioner has alleged that he has been transferred from Engineering Department to Grocery Department due to mala fide and bad intention and to curb his trade union activities as such this act of the respondents falls within the ambit of unfair labour practice.

3. While admitting the petition on 24-11-2009 interim prohibitory order was passed in favour of petitioner.

4. On receipt of notice the respondents filed their comments with preliminary legal objections and counter affidavit in which they have vehemently denied the allegation levelled by the petitioner. They have asserted that it was a normal and routine transfer and it has not been made due to involvement of the petitioner in trade union activities.

5. I have heard arguments of Ch.Latif Saghar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and Mr.Faisal Mahmood Ghani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner argued that petitioner is working on a specialized post i.e. Storekeeper Engineering and while appointing him his previous experience was also considered that he was working in Hussain Textile Mills where he worked for about three years in Main. Store Technical Department and now he has been transferred from Engineering Department to Grocery Department with mala fide intention to curb his trade union activities, which is act of unfair labour practice.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents argued that in order bring a case of unfair labour practice the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Bench of Commission towards industrial dispute which was raised by another union which was CBA in 2005 and the management while appointing the petitioner has considered his three years experience which has been earned while working in Hussain Textile Mills as Store Keeper in Technical Department, which was not a specialized field. It was argued that under the Memorandum dated 21-11-2009 the petitioner has to resume his duty on 23-11-2009, whereas the petition has been filed on 24-11-2009 and the impugned order has already taken effect, as such this Bench of Commission is not competent to grant status quo by reversing the said transfer order but the Commission has jurisdiction to prohibit the apprehended acts of unfair labour practice. He has further argued that entire ingredients of unfair labour practice are missing as no any specific instance of unfair labour practice has been mentioned in the petition and while filing the present A petition the petitioner wanted that his transfer order which has already taken effect be stayed, therefore not only the stay application but main petition is not maintainable and the same may be dismissed.

8. I have considered the arguments advanced by both the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings of the parties and other material placed on record.

9. It is worth to mention here that the petitioner has been transferred from Engineering Department to Grocery within the very same building and premises. So far my knowledge is concerned the Grocery Store is easier to handle as against the Engineering Store. While transferring the petitioner there has been no change in terms and conditions of service of the petitioner. I am therefore failed to understand as to why the petitioner has brought this petition.

10. It is pertinent to mention here that only bald and vague allegations have been made and no specific instance of unfair labour, practice has been mentioned in the petition. The petitioner has alleged that he has been transferred by the respondents due to his trade union but no such detail of union activities which caused annoyance to the respondents has been specified. To transfer an employee is right and prerogative of the employer if such transfer is not tainted with any act of unfair labour practice. In the present case the petitioner has failed to prove that he has been transferred by way of unfair labour practice due to his trade union activities.

11. In view of above facts and circumstances I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for grant of stay. Balance of convenience is not in his favour and he will not suffer any irreparable loss or injury if the stay order is not granted. Accordingly not only the application under Regulation 32 (2) (c) of NIRC (P&F) Regulations, 1973 but main petition is dismissed. H.B.T./22/NIRC Petition dismissed.