1997 PLP 278 (PLC)

A meeting of M.C.B. Officers' Welfare Association, Muzaffarabad Zone held on 23rd April, 1996, Rawalakot, A.K. at 2‑00 p.m. Under the President-ship of Sardar Zahid Hussain Khan, President, M.C.B. Officers' Welfare Association, Muzaffarabad, A.K. Zone. Majority of the members participated. Many speakers highlighted the various issues and problems which they are facing. They determined to extend their full endeavors for the progress of the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. They also paid rich tributes to the services of the M.C.B. President Mr. Hussan Lawai, rendered by him for the progress of Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and as well as for the staff. At the end of the meeting, a resolution was passed by the vote of all participants: (1) Separate recruitment quota should be kept and prescribed for the sons of the M.C.B. Officers. (2) Residential telephone call bills of AJK, M.C.B. Officers be paid on Perity basis with Pakistan. (3) Merit must be followed in transfers/postings. (4) Staff in M.C.B. Muzaffarabad A.K. Zone be increased. The petitioner showed their apprehension that the General Manager and the Regional Manager, Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Muzaffarabad who were defendants in the original petition, intend to transfer them in order to curtail their healthy Trade Union's activities. Alongwith the application, the petitioners moved an application for interim relief. On this application a notice was issued to the non‑petitioners for October 2, 1996. Objections on behalf of the respondents were however filed on September 12, 1996. Ultimately the learned Labour Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, vide judgment under appeal declined the relief prayed for; which order has been assailed in appeal before this Court. Sardar Rafique Mahmood Khan, learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants are the office‑bearers of the Welfare Association of the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited. In order to curtail their lawful activities the respondents intend to victimise them by way of their transfers. According to the learned counsel, these transfers shall constitute unfair labour practice on the part of the respondents. The learned Labour Court, therefore, should have passed the order against the respondents restraining them from transferring the appellants from their place of posting. Opposing the application, Kh. Shahad Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the appellants have formed a Welfare Association and not any Trade Union. They cannot, therefore, claim any protection under the provisions contained in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1974. He further argued that in the application filed by the appellants under section 30 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance before the Labour Court, Rawalakot, no specific allegation has been levelled against the respondents. The application moved by them is vague, unspecific and lack the details even about the present status of the appellants as well as their places of posting. They have not claimed to be the Members of any Trade Union. The application is also bereft of details that from where and why the respondents want to transfer the appellants and where the respondents intend their posting. The remedy of interim relief, therefore, was rightly declined to the appellants by the Labour Court, Rawalakot. Alternatively the learned counsel for the respondents argued that if the Welfare Association formed by the Officers of the Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, is assumed to be a Trade Union even then the allegation of unfair labour practice attributed to the respondents should have been pleaded specifically as it is a serious matter and if proved, the respondents could even be sent to jail. In the present case vague allegations without due care and caution have been levelled against the respondents who are responsible for the management and better working of the Bank in Azad Kashmir. He relied on a case titled 'United Labour Union C.B.A., P.R.T.C. Intercity, Multan v. Farasat Mand Khan, Director, Operation P.R.T.C., Lahore and others 1991 PLC 338 wherein the stay application moved by the United Labour Union was dismissed on the ground that the allegations levelled in it are vague, unspecific and bereft of details. I have considered the respective arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Application moved by the appellants for the stay, was dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that the allegations were vague and of general nature. The main petition moved by the appellants before the Labour Court, Rawalakot is still pending. It will, therefore, be too early for me to say anything whether the welfare Association of the appellants can be termed as Trade Union and whether the appellants who ace‑the officers of the Bank, were legally competent to bring their petition before the Labour Court under section 30 of the Ordinance, as still the trial Court has not resolved these points. I agree with the learned counsel for the respondents that the allegation of unfair labour practice is a very serious matter because, if proved, the person facing this charge can be sent to the jail for committing the offence. The allegation of unfair labour practice, therefore, must be pleaded with particularity and it must be spelt out from the petition itself. In the present case, vague allegations have been levelled against the respondents. The appellants, as has rightly been pointed out by the trial Court, have not mentioned even their places of posting. Under Service Law, the transfers and postings orders can best be judged by the authority concerned. Due to this reason, the transfer orders are normally not interfered nor any order of restrain is passed unless and uptil it is shown that it would be inconflict with the Statute or it shall be against the Statutory Rules or purpose laid down in the Statute. In the present case, the appellants have failed to prove that the respondents in order to curtail their Trade Union's activities, wanted to transfer them. No error was, therefore, committed by the trial Court while dismissing their application for stay order. A.A./296/Lb.(AJ&K) Appeal dismissed.