2000 PLP 328 (PLC)

‑‑‑‑S.25‑A‑‑‑Grievance petition‑‑‑Application for‑‑‑Transfer of petition‑‑ Employee filed application to transfer his grievance petition to another Court and in another District at the time when evidence of parties was recorded and matter was posted for final arguments‑‑‑Employee during course of hearing of the case had filed many applications for production of additional evidence, but could not produce same despite his applications in that respect were accepted‑‑‑Employee, thus, by his conduct had been abusing process of the Court‑‑‑Employee, in circumstances, would endeavour to secure adjournments to prolong the matter even if his grievance petition was entrusted to a different Court‑‑‑Application for transfer of grievance petition to another Court was rejected, in circumstances. Ahmad Awais Khuram for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent. The matter is pending in the learned Labour Court at Faisalabad; and the greivance‑petitioner seeks its transfer to some other Court. When confronted with the situation that there was no other Labour Court functioning at Faisalabad, the petitioner said that his grievance petition could well be entrusted to the Labour Court at Jhang. It is to be noted that the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court Sargodha tours Jhang for attending to the Labour cases for a few days every months. I have gone through the transfer application, the reply submitted by the respondents, as also the comments offered by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Faisalabad. According to the learned counsel for the Establishment, it is a mala fide move and there is no genuine ground for transfer of the case. req learned Labour Court had, on entertaining the grievance petition of the employee, granted in his favour mandatory injunction, suspending operation of the dismissal order, and he continues to be in service and in enjoyment of all the benefits. Obviously the object is to keep the matter lingering on, for as long as it is possible for the petitioner.

2. The comments reveal that the petitioner is a super clever and cunning person and has obnoxiously been abusing the process of the Court, rather prostituting it. Evidence of the parties was recorded and the case was postal for arguments. On 26‑9‑1998 the date fixed for final arguments, the petitioner moved an application for additional evidence, but the same was subsequently on 30‑10‑1998 withdrawn. Again, .the matter was fixed for ‑final argument to be addressed on 13‑11‑1998. When the petitioner moved another application, for additional evidence. The prayer was accepted by the Court on 20‑11‑1998, and the petitioner was called upon to adduce additional evidence on 30‑11‑1998. In spite of getting repeated adjournments, the petitioner failed to produce any evidence in addition, which was closed on 12‑1‑1999. The excuse put forth for not being able to lead additional evidence on 30‑11‑1998 being that it was a rainy day was found to be fictitious or false. He hit upon another device and filed a new Vakalatnama. The object obviously was to obtain another adjournment. Finding no plausible explanation and genuine excuse for inability of the employee to lead additional evidence, his evidence was closed. He filed a revision petition before this Tribunal. The other side made a conceding statement, so that the revision petition was allowed. The petitioner who was keen to bring on record ‑some evidence in addition, however did not do so, and instead he moved a transfer application, which has been pending before this Tribunal since 5‑4‑1999. Further, proceedings in the Court below have remained stayed, and thus, the petitioner has, in a way, achieved his object; to cause C delay in the proceedings. Once again, the petitioner has submitted a new Vakalatnama signed by two Advocates, today (i.e. on 22‑10‑1999), the Court fee stamp bearing date of 5 months earlier (25‑5‑1999). One of the 2 learned Advocates has appeared, but seeks another adjournment, which I do not at all find myself inclined to grant, for obvious reasons. The previous counsel had made appearance on 5th and 6th April, 1999, and even afterwards, and this and entailed a number of adjournments; but even today the new counsel having made appearance is not prepared to address the Court and is in a mood to seek and adjournment for this petty matter.

3. In all probability, I have a firm conviction, the petitioner will endeavour to secure adjournment, even if the case is entrusted to a different Court, and from that Court too he will ask for shifting of the case to yet another Court, so that end of the proceedings of the grievance petition does not remain in sight. Conduct of this kind on the part of any litigant must be depreciated with the disdain it observes. I would, therefore, reject the prayer. The case will remain with the learned Labour Court, Faisalabad, and the said Court will arrive at a final decisions before winter spell. 4.Copy of this order shall immediately be communicated to the Court concerned. H.B.T./954/P (L. Trib) Transfer application rejected.