1983 PLP 997 (SCMR)

NASIM HASSAN SHAH, J. The Labour Court struck down the order trans ferring the respondent, Habibullah; a Ticket Examiner in the G. T. S., to the G. T. S. Rawalpindi Saddar, Sub Office Chakwal and directed the Punjab Road Transport Board to adjust him in equal cadre like other employees or to transfer him to nearby place as in case of other officials. The Board failed before the Labour Appellate Tribunal in appeal and also ‑ before the Lahore High Court in writ jurisdiction, but has now moved this Court for leave to appeal.

2. The facts, which from the background, are that Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Junior Clerk in the Government Transport, D. G. Khan, on 24th January, 1968 and thereafter he was selected as a Ticket Examiner on z9‑9‑1977 and is holding this post since then.

3. In pursuance of a directive issued by the Punjab Government the petitioner Board carried out "organization and method exercise" to the effect that the optimum number of posts in various categories be determined keeping in view the number of buses available for service. This exercise, it is stated was carried out throughout the Punjab. It transpired that there were 18 Ticket Examiners in D. G. Khan and that under the above‑noted directive issued by the Punjab Government the number of posts needed there were only

15. Accordingly the petitioner curtailed the number of posts to 15 resulting in three posts of Ticket Examiners becoming surplus. According to the seniority list of the Ticket Examiners of D. G. Khan the respondent was the junior most hence he was transferred to a comparatively far off station.

4. Mr. S. M. Zaffar, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Labour Court had no jurisdiction to interfere with the order of the kind passed in this case. According to him, interference in the order of an employer under the Industrial Relations Ordinance is possible only if an "unfair labour practice" is committed on his part, The acts, which fall within the ambit of unfair labour practices are contained in section 15 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The only clause covering the instant case is clause (d) of sec tion 15 (1) of the Ordinance. There under, the employer is debarred from dismissing discharging, removing from employment or "transferring" a work man simply on. account of his participation in trade union activities. In this case, according to the learned counsel the respondent who was merely being absorbed after the post that he was holding had become surplus and there was no bar to his being absorbed in the Organization at a place different from where be was working in such a case. In short, the submission is that the present was not a case of transfer but really of absorption of an employee, who had become surplus on the reorganization of the Department.

5. It was also submitted that the so‑called order of transfer had been challenged by the respondent on the grounds of mala fide and victimization but that the Appellate Tribunal had found :‑ "It cannot, however, be said ‑definitely that in retaliation the respondent was transferred to a far off place but this is manifest that his transfer to Chakwal was not unavoidable". It is, therefore urged that the grounds of mala fide and victimization not having been substantiated, the Labour Court could not interfere with the administrative discretion of the Department. These submissions inter alia, require consideration. Leave is accordingly, granted.

6. The interim order of stay shall continue during the pendency of the appeal, hearing whereof should be expedited to the extent possible. S. Q. Leave granted.