1996 PLP 100 (PLC)

M.K. Khan for Petitioners. Zaffar Mahmood for Respondents. By this common order I intend to dispose of the above titled two petitions i.e. bearing No. 4‑A(114) of 1995 and 4A(115) of 1995'filed under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969, by the petitioners, contending therein that they are the employees of the Establishment of Utility Store Corporation of Pakistan. It was contended that being the employees, the petitioner in Case No. 4‑A(114) of 1995 namely Muhammad Wazir is also the Assistant General Secretary of Utility Store Corporation Workers' Union, which is also the C.BA. of the Establishment. While in Petition No. 4‑A(115) of 1995, the petitioner namely Abdul Hameed Abbasi is the President of the said union. It was further contended that due to the performance of the lawful trade union activities the Management/respondents are seriously annoyed and have lodged a false and baseless F.I.R. against the petitioners and are likely to commit unfair labour practice with the petitioners. It was further contended that the petitioners were victimised by way of passing of transfer orders dated 18‑6 1995. Considering such contentions this Commission passed an interim injunction orders in favour of the petitioners on 19‑6‑1995 whereby the transfer order dated 19‑6‑1995 were suspended and the respondents were further directed that they should not remove the petitioners from services till further orders.

2. The respondents strongly contested both the petitions by way of filing of written statement and rejoinder to the stay application wherein certain preliminary legal objections as to the maintainability of the petition were also raised.

3. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and have also considered the documents filed on record.

4. The facts of the case reveal, as also admitted by the parties, that although both the petitioners, being employees of the Utility Store Corporation, are also the members and office‑bearers of Utility Store Corporation Workers' Union but have raised certain demands and for the acceptance of the same, have also pressurized the respondents through issuance of strike notice. It is also an admitted feature of the case that the dispute is still pending for adjudication before the Conciliator. The record further reveals that on 14‑6‑1995, an F.I.R. was lodged in the Police Station, Rawalpindi by Ch. Muhammad Anwar, who is the Area Manager of the Utility Store Corporation, under sections 337‑A/34, 109 of the P.P.C. Both the petitioners were nominated in the said F.I.R. However, subsequently, the petitioners obtained bail from the competent Court but the case is still not finally decided by any competent Court. Under such circumstances, on 18‑6‑1993 the petitioner Muhammad Wazir was transferred from Muslim Town, Rawalpindi to Regional Office, Islamabad and likewise the petitioner namely Mr. Abdul Hameed Abbasi was transferred from B, Block Store, Rawalpindi to Regional Office, Islamabad.

5. At this stage, I feel it necessary to observe that the F.I.R. lodged by the Area Manager Ch. Muhammad Anwar, may not be correct and authenticated but is indicative of the fact that a fatal dispute exists between the parties and in order to avoid any further mishap between the petitioners and the said Area Manager of Utility Store Corporation, the services of the petitioners were rightly transferred to Regional Office, Islamabad. Besides, it is also a well‑settled principle of law that transfer of an employee is one of the basic rights of the employer, which is always exercised in the better performance and interest of the establishment and it cannot be snatched away until and unless there exists a positive unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15(d) of the I.R.O., 1969 on the part of the employer with the employees and which is lacking in the case in hand. This view got support from the case‑law reported in PLD 1988 SC 53, 1994 PLC 140, 1994 PLC 284 and 1989 PLC 439.

6. In the light of the above discussion it is held that the petitioners have failed to establish a case of unfair labour practice within the meaning of section 15(d) of the I.R.O., 1969 against the respondents, which is necessary element for the exercise of jurisdiction by this Commission under section 22‑A(8)(g) of the I.R.O., 1969, therefore, both the petitions are not maintainable and are dismissed without any orders as to costs. The interim orders dated 18‑6‑1995 are recalled. H.B.T./251/NIRC Petition dismissed.